Get exact post content and history pointer

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool returns both the canonical record and the latest immutable content version, and that the identifier can be one of several types. This enriches the behavioral understanding without contradicting 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb. No unnecessary words. Every piece of information (return value and identifier types) is essential and immediately visible.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It explains both the input semantics and the output content without requiring additional details.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It does so explicitly by listing the accepted identifier forms: local id, remote id, slug, canonical URL, or exact title. This gives meaning to the single 'identifier' parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource: the canonical record and latest immutable content version for a post. It specifies multiple identifier types (local id, remote id, slug, canonical URL, or exact title), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_posts or list_post_versions, which focus on listing or version history.

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 clear usage: use this when you need the canonical record and latest content version given a post identifier. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use list_post_versions instead. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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