get_content_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'public content' and returns author/body/metrics, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or the relationship between content_id and share_text (e.g., what happens if both are provided).

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and then give parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose information.

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?

Despite schema coverage, the description is incomplete because it says to pass content_id or share_text, but neither is required in the schema, creating ambiguity about whether at least one must be supplied. Additionally, no return format or error scenarios are described, and the verbosity parameter is only in the schema, not the description. This is a significant gap for a tool with four parameters.

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%, providing descriptions for all parameters. The description adds valuable semantics by stating that either content_id or share_text should be passed, clarifying the alternative relationship not explicit in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline.

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's purpose: to retrieve detailed data for a single piece of public content, including author, body, and interaction metrics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hot_list (list) and get_user_posts (user posts) by focusing on single content details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as social_search or get_comments. The description only explains what the tool does and how to pass parameters, without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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