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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the returned content (status, failure detail, text, schedule, timezone, media, targets, networkOptions) and the constraint that only Ignix posts are returned. It does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but with annotations the bar is lower.

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 three compact clauses: what it returns, where postId comes from and what is excluded, and when to use it. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating status, failure detail, text, schedule, timezone, media, target accounts, and networkOptions. It also covers source constraints and sequencing relative to update_post, retry_post, and duplicate_post, leaving nothing essential for calling the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already explains that postId is an Ignix post id from list_posts. The description adds value by saying postId also comes from the tool that created the post, which is not in the schema. It slightly exceeds baseline for a single fully documented parameter.

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 Ignix post in full', then enumerates the included fields. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from list_posts and list_library_posts, so an agent can identify the exact resource and scope without opening the schema.

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?

It names the source of postId (list_posts or the creating tool), states an exclusion ('posts published outside Ignix are not here (list_library_posts)'), and gives a clear workflow rule: use it before update_post, retry_post or duplicate_post. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is explicit.

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