pfm_get_post

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits itself. It communicates that this is a read operation for a single post by ID, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any error behavior, authentication requirements, or return format, leaving some gaps.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains zero filler or redundant information, making it optimally concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what it does and when to use it. The only minor omission is a description of the return value, but for a simple getter, this is largely self-evident.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter 'id' with a description ('Post ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the ID is used to fetch the post, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a single social post' with the scope 'by its ID'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool pfm_get_posts, which presumably retrieves multiple posts.

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 phrase 'by its ID' clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving one specific post when the ID is known, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, hence not a 5.

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