fc get feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail (numeric id is resolved to a slug and then handled exactly as the by-slug endpoint), but says nothing about auth requirements or what a missing/foreign id yields.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the trailing 'Controller:' and 'Route source:' lines are implementation metadata that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, diluting an otherwise efficient description.

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-only single-entity fetch this covers the basics, and annotations carry the safety profile. With no output schema, however, the description gives no hint of the returned post shape or error behavior, leaving a modest gap for an agent that must interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already explains account, context (with enum) and feed_id. The description adds only the id-resolution behavior, which is minor semantics beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Returns a single post by numeric id') and clarifies the id-to-slug resolution, which distinguishes it from fc_list_feeds and the other fc_* feed tools. An agent can tell exactly what it fetches without opening the schema.

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 implied by 'returns a single post by numeric id' versus the listing sibling fc_list_feeds, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of the by-slug/list alternatives, and no guidance on the account/context parameters beyond what the schema states.

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