api_get_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds only the optional-comments behavior, which is really parameter information, and says nothing about error behavior for missing IDs or remote fetch characteristics.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the optional-comments behavior come first. It is arguably too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented three-parameter schema, and an output schema covering return values, the description needs to do little. It covers the essential action and the optional-comment flag; only routing against sibling tools is left unaddressed.

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% and all three parameters (post_id, response_format, include_comments) carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'by ID' and 'optional comments' restates rather than extends what the schema documents.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single post by ID'), which clearly separates it from collection-level siblings like api_list_posts. It does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with api_create_post/api_update_post, but the singular-resource framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 rather than stated: fetch this when you have a post ID and want one post. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative (api_list_posts) for retrieving multiple posts, so the agent must infer the routing.

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