Get a blog post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; doesn't consume credits,' which is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the schema. It does not detail response shape on not-found or error cases, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds necessary detail about translations and safety. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, included fields, translation behavior, and safety profile. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that lang picks a non-default translation and id_or_slug accepts either a numeric ID or slug. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying the relationship between parameters.

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 tool fetches a single blog post by id or slug, lists the included fields (title, body, excerpt, SEO meta, translations), and is distinct from sibling tools like list_blog_posts or get_page. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'blog post' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve one blog post by id or slug. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_blog_posts to find posts'), but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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