x_post_get

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the output format (compacted posts with author handle, text, metrics, refs, media), the `missing` list behavior for deleted/protected/not-found ids, and the `raw: true` switch for the uncompacted envelope. This gives the agent accurate expectations without needing to inspect the output schema.

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 information-dense sentences front-load the core action and resource, then deliver return behavior and the variant flag with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the input types and limits, the response shape, error/absence handling, and the one behavioral flag. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (ids documented, raw not), but the description fully explains `raw: true` as returning the uncompacted, size-capped API envelope and reinforces the ids format with the status URL example. Both parameters are therefore semantically covered.

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 opens with 'Batch-fetch one or more X (Twitter) posts by numeric id or status URL', giving a specific verb, resource, and input form. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling mutations like x_post_create or x_post_delete and from timeline/search getters, so an agent can select it by ID-based lookup.

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 makes clear the tool is for ID/URL-addressed post retrieval and batch sizes of 1-100, which tells an agent when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough from the input constraints.

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