get_post_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and listing returned fields is transparent about output. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior on invalid URLs. It is not misleading, but lacks deeper behavioral 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned content fields. Every element adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 has one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it returns and why it exists. It does not explain return formatting, but the output schema handles that. It could mention sibling differentiation, but that is covered in the usage dimension.

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%, and the post_url parameter is already fully described in the schema ('Full URL of the post (absolute paths also work)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so the baseline score 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' with the resource 'full content of a Reddit post' and enumerates concrete fields (title, author, score, selftext, flair, metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_post_comments, which target comments rather than post content, and search_reddit, which performs searches.

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 need full post content, use this tool. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to choose it over siblings such as get_post_comments, and does not mention alternatives or exclusions. This is adequate but not explicit.

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