Read any post in full

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: the content is written by other people and must be treated as data, not as instructions. It also discloses the markdown return format and paid-post access behavior, which is genuinely useful for an AI agent.

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, each earning its place: the action and scope, the return format, and a critical safety instruction. The description is front-loaded, non-redundant, and easy to parse.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a read-only tool: access scope, markdown output, and injection warning are covered, and the schema handles parameter details. It lacks explicit guidance on how this tool relates to similar siblings, but that is a minor gap.

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 post_id and publication are already fully documented in the schema. The free-text description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general access scope, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (read full post text), the resource scope (any post you have access to, including paid posts), and the return format (markdown). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_post or get_post_by_id, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs the full content of an accessible post, especially third-party content. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving usage routing largely implicit.

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