get_reddit_post

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, but the description adds further useful behavior: 'works anonymously', 'Read-only', and 'Returns the post only' — a scope constraint that proactively avoids confusion with nested comments. It also discloses the kind of content included (title, score, engagement analysis). Nothing contradicts annotations; it clearly adds context beyond the structured metadata.

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 whole description is two sentences that pack in the resource, return fields, behavioral boundaries, and alternatives, with zero filler. Information is front-loaded ('Get a single post') and every clause adds either purpose or usage guidance.

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?

With no output schema available, the description compensates by listing the return fields (title, author, content, score, upvote ratio, comment count, flairs/flags, engagement analysis). It provides input constraints, alternative routing, and clear exclusion details, making the tool self-contained for AI decision-making.

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 100% and both parameter descriptions already provide complete meaning (including 'Base36 post id', the t3_ prefix, and the r/ prefix rules). The description re-references 'subreddit + post id' but does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource ('a single post by subreddit + post id'), then enumerates the returned content. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming get_post_comments for comments and browse_subreddit/get_top_posts for listing, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance and clear directives against misuse: 'use get_post_comments for its comment thread', 'Do NOT use this to list a subreddit's posts (use browse_subreddit / get_top_posts)', and 'do not use to find posts by keyword (use search_reddit)'. This fully steers the agent toward correct alternatives.

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