ghl_social_get_csv_post

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning pagination params (skip, limit) and how to page through results, which enhances transparency 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?

The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and including endpoint and pagination details. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

While the description covers purpose, parameters, and pagination, it lacks details about the return value structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what fields are included in the response. However, for a simple read operation with good annotations and schema, it is fairly adequate.

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 parameters. The description only reinforces the pagination behavior without adding new meaning beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific CSV import including its posts', distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_social_delete_csv_post (delete) and ghl_social_csv_list (list).

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 when to use (when needing details of a specific CSV import and its posts) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The naming convention among siblings provides some context, but the description itself lacks guidance.

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