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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: default projection omits prices, market projection supplies price evidence, missing items surface as not_found, and duplicate IDs are normalized. It does not explain the idempotentHint=false implication, which is the one uncovered trait.

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?

Five dense sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the use condition and the batch scope before the projection rule. Every sentence conveys a distinct operational fact.

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 takes on return-shape duty and does so: it enumerates the fields returned and describes the not_found and dedupe edge cases. Sourcing of post_ids and pagination/partial-failure behavior for large batches are the remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains both parameters meaningfully: post_ids as canonical IDs batched up to 50, and projection's reading-vs-market tradeoff (text/identities/quotes/provenance vs price evidence). It omits where canonical IDs are obtained and the UUID format constraint already in the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('read up to 50 canonical post IDs in one request') and pins the content retrieved (full retained text, identities, quotes, provenance). The batch-of-50 framing implicitly separates it from the singular get_post sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Opens with a clear use condition ('when reading original claims, conditions or quoted context from selected search results') and adds an in-tool alternative rule ('choose market for price evidence') plus a reuse instruction to avoid redundant calls. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (search_posts, get_post) or stating when not to use it.

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