Read a single post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully notes that the parent topic is returned alongside the post, but says nothing about behavior on an invalid or deleted pid, nor about the result shape. Adds modest value over the annotations, not rich behavioral context.

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 action and the return scope, then the usage condition. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input, the return scope (post plus topic), and the use case. It is close to complete; only error/edge-case behavior is left unstated, which is minor here.

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 the single pid parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the /post/<pid> format and an exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description only restates 'by its id' and adds no syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read one post by its id') and adds scope by noting the parent topic is included. It implicitly separates itself from get_topic and search_forum by emphasizing a single reply, though it never names those siblings outright.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition: 'when a search result or a link points at a specific reply and you only need that reply.' That distinguishes the single-post case from browsing, but it does not explicitly name get_topic as the alternative when the topic itself is wanted.

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