Get Post Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond restating the action (get details). It does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits, but the bar is lower due to the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and directly states the tool's function and input. It earns its place with zero waste.

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 simple single-parameter schema, the read-only annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficient to guide invocation. It doesn't explain the return value details, but that is covered by the output schema per the rules. The only minor gap is that the description doesn't explicitly mention the platform (e.g., Facebook), but the schema example fills this. Overall, adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 fully describes the only parameter (post_url) with a clear description and example, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description simply says 'by its URL', which adds no new meaning beyond what is already provided in the schema. Thus the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action (get details), the resource (a single post), and the key input (its URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_posts or get_post_comments, which deal with lists or comments. The purpose is 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 the usage scenario: when you have a post URL and need its details. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear from the phrasing 'by its URL'. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, but the implied usage is straightforward.

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