divar_get_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only public fetch by describing the returned fields, but it does not mention error behavior, invalid tokens, missing posts, or rate/access limitations. This is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 one well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then efficiently lists the concrete data fields returned. Every clause adds useful information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what will be returned, including dates, location, attributes, and category info. It even connects the district id to a sibling tool for follow-up search. It could still mention invalid-token behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already fully documents it as 'Post token (gaxi5lYL) or any divar.ir post URL.' The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, 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?

The description clearly identifies a specific action (retrieve full public detail) on a specific resource (one divar.ir post) and enumerates what is included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like divar_search or divar_similar_posts, which handle lists or related posts.

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 'for one post' implies it should be used when a specific post token or URL is available, and the mention that district id is usable as a divar_search filter hints at downstream use. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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