Get post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's added value is the return-shape disclosure (status, permalinks, errors, aspect/fit), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about auth requirements, error behaviour when a postId is unknown, or freshness of status data.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first front-loads what comes back, the second routes away to the sibling. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, describing return contents is the description's core job and it does that well for a single-entity read. What is missing is modest — error/not-found behaviour and any note on how current per-channel status is — but nothing blocks a correct invocation.

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% for the single required postId, so the burden falls on the description — and it mentions nothing about the identifier. The schema does supply the string type and an ID pattern, which partially compensates. Adequate, but the description contributes no parameter meaning of its own.

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 names the resource (a single post) and enumerates what it carries back: per-channel status, permalinks, errors, and each channel's aspect/fit. It also distinguishes itself from postfjord_preview_post, so the agent can separate the two without opening a schema. The only weakness is an implicit verb — 'One post with...' rather than an explicit 'Get a single post including...'.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: use postfjord_preview_post to see the pictures themselves, which precisely carves out the one adjacent tool an agent would confuse this with. It does not cover other plausible neighbours such as postfjord_get_analytics or list-type tools, but for a single-resource fetch the context is clear.

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