pfm_get_post_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response structure (success/failure, errors, platform_data, media), which is useful, but it does not mention behavior for missing IDs, error conditions, or any side effects. The mention of 'errors' adds some transparency but not complete behavioral disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and directly lists key response elements. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it concise and easy to scan.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description effectively covers the main response components (success/failure, errors, platform_data, media). It could mention not-found behavior or auth requirements, but the listed fields provide a useful mental model for an agent.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'Post result ID'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond 'by its ID', so it aligns with the high schema coverage and earns the baseline score.

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 verb (Get), the resource (a single social post result), and the identifier (by its ID). It distinguishes from sibling 'pfm_get_post_results' by emphasizing 'single' and listing specific return fields, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 implies usage when you have a post result ID and need details about it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use pfm_get_post_results instead, so the guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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