Read a post by id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral signal is the word 'published,' hinting that non-published/draft ids may not resolve, but it never states what happens on a miss or whether drafts are excluded.

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: the first states purpose and the id-vs-slug scope, the second states the trigger. Zero filler and the routing information is front-loaded.

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 idempotent read with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it. The minor gap is the unstated behavior for a draft id or a nonexistent id, though with no output schema this is a small omission.

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 post_id and publication are already documented in the schema, including the loose hostname matching and the default publication. The description only restates that the id is numeric and adds nothing about the publication parameter, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read a published post by its numeric id') and contrasts the lookup key with the slug-based alternative, which separates it from slug-oriented siblings like get_post. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer which tool the slug path belongs to.

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?

'Use this when a stats or list tool gave you an id' gives a concrete triggering condition and names the upstream tool families that supply the id. It provides clear context but no explicit when-not or named alternative for the slug case, so an agent still has to infer the inverse route.

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