posts_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the notable output trait: the response includes the 'full HTML body' rather than a summary. It says nothing about not-found behavior, auth requirements, or whether the read has side effects, which leaves meaningful gaps for a read tool.

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 no filler; every clause (identifier options, payload content) earns its place.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts, including the return payload. It slightly under-specifies the edge case where neither id nor slug is supplied, but otherwise nothing critical 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 the schema already documents both id and slug, including that slug is used when id is absent. The description's 'by id or slug' adds no syntax or precedence detail 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a single post'), and the word 'single' implicitly separates it from list-oriented siblings like posts_browse. It does not explicitly name the sibling to use for listing, but the scope 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer posts_browse or pages_read, and no stated prerequisites. The 'by id or slug' phrasing is about inputs, not about tool selection.

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