consultar_post

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the read-only nature, and the description redundantly states 'Somente leitura'. It adds the list of returned fields, which is useful context, but doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling or pagination (not applicable here).

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key return fields without any fluff or repetition.

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 one parameter, the description is sufficiently complete: it lists the return fields, and the schema explains where the post_id comes from. No output schema exists, but the field list compensates. Sibling tool context is not explicitly addressed, but the tool's scope is clear.

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%, with post_id fully described as the UUID returned by listing tools. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Consulta' and the target resource 'post específico', and enumerates the fields returned (título, legenda, roteiro, datas, mídia, status de aprovação). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_posts_cliente (listing) and criar_post/atualizar_post (write operations).

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 phrase 'post específico' implies this tool is for fetching a single post by ID, contrasting with listing tools. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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