Read a post

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that the response is the post's *live* (fresh) state, that it includes a human-facing calendar url, and that a read scope is required — none of which is encoded in the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return/auth detail. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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, the description is not obligated to document return values, and it nonetheless flags the notable one (the calendar url). Purpose, auth requirement, and freshness are all covered; only the routing relative to posts_list is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'id'. The description adds no format, example, or sourcing detail for the id beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 the correct score 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One post's live state') and even names what comes back (the opening url). It implicitly distinguishes itself from posts_list by scoping to a single post, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 only implied — 'One post's live state' tells the agent this is the single-post read path, but no alternatives (posts_list, posts_approve, posts_dismiss) are named and no when-not condition is given. 'Needs the read scope' supplies the one prerequisite, which lifts it above a bare 2.

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