getSinglePost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional field expansions' which hints at configurability, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or the structure of the returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, though it could potentially be more structured by separating the core retrieval from the expansion feature. There's no wasted verbiage.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how expansions affect the output, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a retrieval tool with multiple configuration options and no output schema, more context is needed to make it actionable.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional field expansions' which loosely references the expansion-related parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about how expansions work or their relationship to the various '.fields' parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single post by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from bulk retrieval tools like 'getBulkPosts' by specifying 'single post', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other single-post operations like 'getLikedTweets' or 'getUserBookmarks' beyond the ID-based retrieval.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'getBulkPosts', 'getUserTimeline', 'searchRecent'), there's no indication of when ID-based retrieval is preferred over other methods, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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