Read one post

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a read-only operation, and the description reinforces 'Read' while adding useful behavioral detail about the returned data and the purpose of content_hash. It goes beyond the annotation by explaining how the result should be used downstream.

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 two focused sentences: the first states what the tool returns, and the second gives a practical usage hint. There is no redundant or filler content, and important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what is returned, the important content_hash field, and how to use it. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly 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?

The schema has one parameter, 'id', with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explicitly explain that 'id' is the post ID, though 'Read a single post' implies it. This is minimal compensation for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('a single post'), and names the concrete output components: source, content_hash, graphs, points, and reactions. It is distinct from the sibling read_thread, which would be used for an entire thread.

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 gives a clear context clue: read a single post, particularly when you need the content_hash for use in references when replying. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like read_thread, but the single-post framing and sibling list make the intended use apparent enough.

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