get_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result contains 'details and metrics' but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limiting, or what happens with an invalid or deleted post ID.

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 core action is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the Args block exists only to give format examples that the schema lacks. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single input parameter is fully described. The gaps are the absent auth/rate-limit context and error behavior, which matter given a rate-limit-oriented sibling but are minor for a simple getter.

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% (the property is just a bare string), so the description does the work by specifying two accepted formats with concrete examples of a numeric ID and a full status URL. It does not address edge cases such as shortened links or URLs from other domains.

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 specific verb and resource ('Fetch details and metrics for a specific post') plus the lookup key, which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_* tools and get_post_counts. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter contract: call this when you already have a post ID or URL. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternatives (e.g. search_recent_posts for discovering posts), and no mention of prerequisites or rate-limit behavior despite check_rate_limits being a sibling.

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