x_api_get_posts_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states 'Risk: read-only', details required permissions (bearer, OAuth 2 scopes, OAuth 1a), explains environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, lists common failure conditions, and provides safety warnings about sensitive data. This goes well beyond minimal requirements.

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?

The description is long but well-structured with labeled sections: Use when, Do not use when, Risk, Permissions, Environment-selection, Parameter formats, Expected response, Failure conditions, Recommended tools, Safety, and Example. It is dense and informative without redundant filler, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers expected response shape, failure conditions, permissions, environment selection, safety, and gives a concrete example. It also points to prerequisite and follow-up tools, providing the agent with sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain key parameters: id (path, required), scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId selection logic, and credentialKey. It does not describe authorizationKey or preferredAuthType, but the example and auth sections provide context. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get Post by ID', a clear verb+resource statement that conveys the tool's primary function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling x_api_get_posts_by_ids (plural), relying on the name itself for distinction.

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 a 'Do not use when' clause that excludes exploration and points to x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion as alternatives. It also lists recommended prerequisite tools. The 'Use when' clause is tautological ('Get Post by ID'), so it lacks a rich positive usage scenario, but the exclusion and alternatives are helpful.

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