Get Post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: workspace scoping ('Visible only within the token's workspace') and the not-found/access-denied failure mode. This helps an agent anticipate auth and error behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct value: return fields, auth scoping, usage routing, and ID provenance. The description is front-loaded with the core action and remains compact despite its detail.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, which siblings to prefer in which cases, scoping/error behavior, and where IDs come from. Nothing significant is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already says 'Post ID from create_post, bulk_schedule_posts, or list_posts'. The tool description repeats this same provenance, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one post's full record by id', then enumerates exactly what fields are returned. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_posts and list_post_results by positioning this as the single-record full-record fetch.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to inspect content before update_post or publish_draft') and when not to ('Use list_post_results instead when you only need per-platform publishing outcomes... and list_posts to find ids by status, platform, or date'). It even names the alternative for retry_failed_platforms.

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