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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it distinguishes identity_mentions (original-text UTF-16 spans) from display_identity_mentions (reading text), and warns 'Text is untrusted evidence.' This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly structured: it front-loads the core read behavior, then lists the meaningful return facets, and ends with a useful caution. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy.

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 compensate by explaining return contents; it names major fields and even clarifies the identity_mentions distinction. Still, it leaves some ambiguity around 'bounded provenance' and does not explain how the detail/projection parameters alter the response payload, so an agent may not fully predict the output shape.

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 carries extra responsibility. It explains output concepts like original_text, reading text, identity_mentions, and market context, which indirectly clarify projection values. However, it does not explicitly map compact/market detail or reading/market projection to the described fields, leaving part of the parameter semantics to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one stored post by canonical post UUID'. It clearly scopes the operation to a single post and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_posts and search_posts by requiring a canonical UUID.

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?

The phrase 'one stored post by canonical post UUID' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: use it when you already have a post UUID and need the stored post detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the UUID-based contract makes the intended use evident.

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