get_reader_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (HTML body, author, stats, audience) and warns about the size trade-off with include_body. The verb 'read' implies a safe, non-mutating operation, though it does not explicitly state side effects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: scope, return content, and unique usage. No wasted words.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and the trade-offs of the optional parameter.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it reinforces that the body is HTML and that include_body controls body inclusion, matching the schema's explanation.

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 tool's function: 'Read one post in full, from any publication — not just your own.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the only way to read the text of someone else's post.'

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, emphasizing that it works for any publication and is the only way to view others' content. It does not explicitly name alternatives for reading your own posts, but the unique scope makes usage clear.

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