Get a specific esa post

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with retrieval. Description adds behavioral details: response always includes backlinks_count, explains truncate behavior (default true, truncation indicator, retry advice), and notes body_md_stats reporting full counts even when truncated.

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 core description is concise (3 sentences, front-loaded). Parameter descriptions are somewhat verbose but necessary for clarity. No wasted sentences. Slightly penalized for length in schema descriptions, but overall well-structured.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral details (truncation, backlinks_count), and references sibling tools for extended functionality. No gaps.

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%, but description adds significant value beyond field names. For truncate: explains default, truncation indicator, and retry condition. For teamName: provides prerequisite guidance. For postNumber: clear. This enriches the schema definitions.

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 'Retrieves a specific post from an esa team by post number', specifying the verb, resource, and key identifier. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming esa_get_post_backlinks for referencing posts and esa_get_post_comments for comments.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'To list the referencing posts themselves, use esa_get_post_backlinks. To fetch comments, use esa_get_post_comments.' Also implicitly guides team selection via schema description: 'Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams.'

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