Get Single Post Details

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 established. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating that it retrieves information; no auth, rate-limit, or return-format details are provided.

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?

The description is two short, efficient sentences with no filler. The function statement is front-loaded and the parameter documentation is compact.

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 tool has no output schema and only a minimal description, so an agent must infer what 'detailed information' includes. While annotations cover safety, the description lacks guidance on expected return structure and when to prefer sibling tools. It is adequate for a simple read but incomplete for full context.

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?

The description's Args section provides the post_id format '{page_id}_{post_id}', which is absent from the input schema. This compensates for the 50% schema description coverage. The response_format parameter is left to the schema, which already documents it.

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 'Gets' and clearly identifies the resource as 'detailed information about a specific Facebook post.' The word 'specific' distinguishes it from the plural sibling meta_get_posts, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like meta_get_posts, meta_get_post_insights, or meta_get_post_comments. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and title.

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