read_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the access model (public embed data, no login), the resulting failure mode (private/protected posts unreadable), the dependency requirement (ffmpeg for frames), and platform-specific limits (YouTube/Vimeo video files locked). This is more than an agent would infer from structured fields alone.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and payload before the access caveat and the platform list. The enumeration is dense but each element (returned fields, platforms) earns its place by telling the agent what to expect.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it lists them explicitly. With no annotations and only two simple parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is read, what is returned, what will fail, and which sites are supported.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the ffmpeg and platform caveats for 'frames'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Read a public social media post from its link') and immediately enumerates the returned payload (text, author, date, stats, links, photos, video). The scope qualifier 'public' and the platform list make the tool's boundary unambiguous even without siblings to differentiate from.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion: private or protected posts cannot be read because the tool relies on public embed data and never logs in. It does not frame alternatives, but there are no sibling tools, so the only missing piece would be guidance on unsupported URLs beyond the platform list, which is partly covered.

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