community_post_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read operation (likely, given the name), what kind of data it returns, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving the agent with no understanding of how the tool behaves.

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?

While technically concise (only two words), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, so its brevity is a liability rather than a strength. A truly concise description would efficiently convey essential information, but this fails to do so.

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?

Given that this is a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. For a tool that presumably retrieves data about community posts, the description should explain what kind of details are returned, how the tool behaves, and when to use it versus alternatives. The current description provides none of this contextual information needed for an agent to effectively use the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Community post ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 'Community Post Details' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful information. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve details about a community post' or 'fetch metadata for a community post'), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'community_post_comments' or 'channel_community'. The description fails to provide a clear verb+resource combination that would help an agent understand what the tool actually does.

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 description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might relate to community content (community_post_comments, channel_community), but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those others. No prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions are mentioned.

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