Get post details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the async create/publish workflow this read supports and the fact that publish errors surface in the response, implying polling semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return contents, then the usage trigger. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is not clarifying its boundary against overlapping siblings like get_publishing_state and get_post_missing_fields.

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 schema already says postId is 'returned by postsider_create_post.' The description adds no additional syntax, format, or sourcing detail for the single required parameter, so 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (organization-scoped post group) and enumerates exactly what is returned: current state, scheduled time, media, channel, publish error. This differentiates it from analytics/missing-fields siblings by content, though it does not explicitly name the near-neighbors such as postsider_get_publishing_state.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger phrase: 'Use this to inspect the result of an asynchronous create or publish operation.' That clearly routes an agent here after create/publish, but no alternatives or exclusions are named for related read tools.

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