velog_get_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral facts: only public posts are readable (so drafts/private content is out of scope) and the response includes the Markdown body. It says nothing about behavior on missing/private posts, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ('public') and the return content ('Markdown body') are packed in efficiently. Brevity borders on under-specification, but nothing written is wasted.

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 two-required-param tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks any explanation of the parameters or of failure modes, which the structured fields do not supply.

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 0% with two required parameters (username, urlSlug), so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that username is the author handle and urlSlug is the post identifier, leaving both fields semantically undocumented.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Read one public Velog post, including its Markdown body.' The word 'one' and 'public' implicitly separate it from velog_list_posts and velog_search_posts, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching a single known post by username/urlSlug rather than searching or listing. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as velog_search_posts when the slug is unknown.

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