Get Post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the read's content scope (answers, followups, replies), which is mild context, but it says nothing about pagination, truncation of long threads, or access requirements for private courses.

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?

Two compact lines with the payload description front-loaded and the parameter hint second, no filler. The only wobble is the Piazza-specific 'both answers' phrasing, which presumes a domain convention rather than stating it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, but with 0% schema coverage and an undocumented 'course' parameter, plus no differentiation from get_posts and get_post_history, the definition is only minimally complete for selecting the tool.

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 carry the load; it usefully explains that 'number' is the Piazza post number displayed as @123. However, 'course' is left entirely unexplained – no indication of whether it is a slug, numeric id, or network identifier – leaving one of two required parameters ambiguous.

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 and resource ('Read one full thread') and enumerates the returned content: question/note, both answers, followups with replies. The singular 'one full thread' implicitly separates it from the plural siblings get_posts/list_posts, but it never explicitly names get_post_history or explains how it differs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named; the agent must infer that this is the single-post lookup chosen over list_posts or search_posts. The one hint given ('number is the post number that Piazza shows as @123') is parameter clarification, not usage guidance.

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