get_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description contributes nothing beyond that — it does not say what "details" encompasses, whether missing IDs error or return empty, or whether the result includes related entities. With annotations carrying the safety burden the bar is lower, but zero added behavioral context on a read tool still lands at 2.

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?

One sentence, action-first, with no filler or hedging. Nothing in it is redundant, though it is also the absolute minimum for the tool.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the definition covers the mechanics of invocation. The gap is the return payload: there is no output schema, so "details" is undefined and the agent cannot anticipate fields like status, scheduled time, or account targets.

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% and the sole parameter is documented as "Post ID", so the schema does all the work. The description only restates "by ID" without adding format hints (numeric vs UUID) or indicating whether the ID must come from list_posts. Baseline 3 applies when the schema is complete.

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?

"Get details of a specific post by ID" states a concrete verb (get) and resource (post) plus the lookup key, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from near siblings such as preview_post, list_posts, or get_carousel_render, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus preview_post (which presumably also renders a single post) or list_posts. The agent is left to infer that this is the fetch-single-record path purely from the word "specific".

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