Get a specific esa post

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

Annotations only declare a safe read operation; the description adds that the response always includes backlinks_count, a genuinely useful behavioral detail not available from the schema or annotations. It stops short of covering not-found behavior or auth requirements, but no output schema exists so this disclosure is valuable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the guaranteed response field, then the two alternative tools. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a read tool with rich schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers purpose, routing to siblings, and one key return field. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and output shape, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so teamName, truncate and postNumber are already documented thoroughly in the schema (including truncation semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (a specific post in an esa team), scoped by post number. It is clearly distinguishable from search_posts and the sibling comment/backlink tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to esa_get_post_backlinks for referencing posts and esa_get_post_comments for comments, which is exactly the disambiguation needed among nearby siblings. It does not, however, state when to reach for this tool versus esa_search_posts or discuss prerequisites such as resolving teamName first.

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