Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes meaningfully further by disclosing data-quality caveats an agent could not infer: source text is untrusted and may be incomplete, reposts retain the sharing author separately, and identity_mentions link UTF-16 spans to canonical assets.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but front-loaded, opening with the usage trigger before moving to parameters and return contents. Every sentence carries distinct information; the only mild cost is that return-value semantics, identity_mentions and repost attribution are packed into a tight run of clauses.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden and largely does: it enumerates original_text, cleaned reading text, bounded media, relations, provenance, engagement/prices, and both mentions variants. The notable remaining gap is that the projection parameter's reading-vs-market behavior is left unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate and it partly does: it specifies the canonical UUID requirement for post_id. However, it never explains the 'projection' enum (reading/market, undocumented in the schema) nor adds anything on 'detail' beyond what the schema text already says, leaving a real gap for two enum parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Use when verifying one selected source's original wording...') and emphasizes singularity ('one selected source'), which distinguishes it from the plural get_posts and search_posts siblings. It is clear about what is retrieved, though it never explicitly names the alternatives it is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: verifying original wording, quote/reply/repost attribution, or price context, plus the prerequisite (canonical post UUID required). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (get_posts, get_price_context) or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.