read_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the return payload (body, AI summary, comments with employer context) and the reasoning behind it. However, it does not disclose that max_comments limits how many comments are returned, despite the schema's default of 40, which could mislead an agent into expecting all comments.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, then the return contents, then a concise rationale for the employer data. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition 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?

The description covers the main purpose, the return values, and the practical use case (weighing claims). Since an output schema exists, return format details are not required here. The main gap is the lack of any mention of max_comments or URL expectations, which keeps it just short of complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It implies that 'url' identifies a single post, but it never explains the expected URL format or the meaning/behavior of 'max_comments'. This leaves both parameters underspecified beyond their names.

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 ('Read one Blind post in full'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools like company_posts and find. It also specifies what the tool returns, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: retrieving a single post by URL in order to read its full content and comments. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the 'one post in full' framing provides enough context for selection.

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