jsonplaceholder.getPost

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely reinforces 'Get' without adding behavioral context. Nothing is said about 404 handling, error responses, or why the schema lacks an ID parameter despite 'by ID' in the description. Since the description carries the full burden beyond annotations and delivers almost nothing, the score is low, though no contradiction rises to the level of an annotation contradiction.

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?

Five words with no wasted content. Every word earns its place, and the sentence is front-loaded with the most important verb. This is short, focused, and appropriate for such a simple 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 tool with zero parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema that documents return values, there is minimal additional context needed. The only gap is the description's 'by ID' claim vs. the empty schema, which is a minor completeness miss but still material given the simplicity. Overall, complete enough for an agent to use it.

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?

Per the baseline for tools with 0 parameters and a matching output schema, score is 4. The description's 'by ID' hints at the intended parameter semantics even though the schema exposes nothing. In fact, the description implies information the schema omits, which is a minor point in its favor for adding meaning, though it would be better if the schema actually exposed the ID parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a single post') that clearly distinguishes this from the sibling getPosts (plural) and createPost tools. The 'by ID' qualifier indicates scope. However, the empty input schema means no ID can actually be passed, making the 'by ID' claim unfulfillable—a real but minor detraction.

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?

Usage is implied through the word 'single' and the contrast with sibling tools like jsonplaceholder.getPosts, suggesting this fetches one post rather than all. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, and the ID-based access pattern is never explained despite no parameter being available to supply the ID. Adequate for a simple getter but lacking explicit differentiation.

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