Read a post by id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'published' constraint and id-based matching, which is useful, but it does not describe error behavior or return format. This is acceptable for a simple read tool with strong annotations.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does and how it differs from slug lookup; the second gives a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with one required parameter, the description plus schema is nearly complete. The only omission is explicit mention of what the response contains, but that is easily inferable for a post-by-id fetch, especially with no output schema and many sibling tools to disambiguate against.

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%, so both post_id and publication are already fully documented, including the default behavior for publication. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but it does not need to given the schema's completeness.

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 verb 'Read', the resource ('published post'), and the lookup key ('numeric id rather than its slug'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from slug-based post retrieval, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting the schema.

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 a concrete trigger: 'Use this when a stats or list tool gave you an id.' It also implies the alternative by saying 'rather than its slug,' though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool like get_post. Clear context, but no explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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