Get full post details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new safety info. However, it does disclose that it returns a 'sample' of comments, a behavioral limitation not captured by annotations or schema, which is valuable 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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the core functionality and then provide a use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, when to use it, and its read-only nature. It could mention return format details, but the schema and annotations cover the essentials.

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%, with both post_url and comment_sample having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a post plus a sample of its comments in a single call, using the specific verb 'get' and resource 'post details'. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_post and read_comments, which focus on individual components.

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 explicitly says to use this when deciding whether a post is worth replying to, providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies this is the go-to for a quick post+comments overview, which is sufficient.

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