Read a full post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: include_attachments downloads and inlines images/PDFs, so agents know the tool can return binary content directly. This goes beyond the annotation baseline and enriches understanding.

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 one sentence with a leading core statement, followed by a parenthetical list of content types and a conditional attachment clause. Every phrase contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers all relevant return contents (body, comments, polls, signups, attachments) and clarifies the attachment side effect. No output schema exists, but the description provides a sufficient mental model for agent use.

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 documents both post_id and include_attachments with descriptions (100% coverage). The description mostly restates the include_attachments behavior without adding new semantics for post_id. Thus a 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 'Full details for one post' and enumerates body text, comments, poll results, signup items, and attachment contents, making both the resource and scope crystal clear. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like get_feeds or get_group_feed.

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 clearly implies use when full details of a single post are needed, including attachment content for readable calendars/flyers. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the context is straightforward and the schema notes post_id comes from get_feeds.

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