Read a post

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

Annotations already establish read-only/open-world behavior; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: member-only posts are fully returned only for members, custom domains work, and long posts are paged with start. It does not cover non-member behavior or max_chars effects, but the provided disclosures go beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences: the core purpose comes first, then membership and domain caveats, then the paging mechanism. Every sentence contributes without redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does explain the return form (Markdown) and paging contract, which is helpful. But it omits the behavior of max_chars and the text format option, leaving important gaps for a four-parameter 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 description coverage is 50%, and the description adds meaning for start by explaining pagination and notes Markdown as the output format. However, max_chars is left completely unexplained and the format='text' option is not mentioned, so the description does not fully compensate for the schema gaps.

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 action ('Read a Medium post') and output format ('as Markdown'), which distinguishes it from feed/list tools like get_feed or get_recent_posts. The additional scope notes about custom domains and member-only posts sharpen the purpose further.

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 implies usage by URL and adds useful context about custom domains and membership, but it never names alternatives or says when not to use this tool versus siblings like search_posts or get_recent_posts. No explicit when/when-not routing is provided.

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