Get landing page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read only' merely repeats structured data and earns no credit. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 30-day measurement window, UTC vs fromLocal/untilLocal schedule duality, and the conditional presence of shareLinks only for live pages. It omits error behavior (unknown pageId), whether drafts are returned, and payload size.

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?

Front-loading is fine ('Read only. One page with...') but the payload enumeration then runs as a single sprawling sentence dense with parenthetical field names, which is hard to scan. Nearly every clause carries information, but the structure would benefit from being broken into distinct chunks (content, scheduling, analytics, share links).

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does its job by spelling out the returned fields in unusual depth, including naming the shareLinks channels. Gaps remain around the pageId input and edge cases like a missing page or an unpublished page, but for a single-parameter read tool it is close to complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions pageId: no format, no source (e.g., from list_pages), no constraints despite the ^[A-Za-z0-9]{1,40}$ pattern. With one required, totally undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read one landing page) and enumerates the exact payload: blocks, schedules with UTC and local times, SEO title/description, publish check, per-link views/taps, sharedVisits30Days and shareLinks. An agent can distinguish this detail read from postfjord_list_pages or postfjord_get_post without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Read it before postfjord_update_page.' It also explains the practical use of the share links ('paste into a chat or DM so the visit is not counted as Direct'). It stops short of naming list_pages as the way to discover a pageId or stating when not to use this tool.

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