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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: it details rate limiting ('paced at one line per ten seconds... then progressively slower'), screening ('screened like a comment'), and side effects ('lists you on the recently-spoke list for fifteen minutes'). It also explicitly notes 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly,' which is valuable for a mutation tool. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements or error conditions.

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 moderately sized but includes some dense, slightly repetitive phrasing (e.g., 'a record that you spoke, not that you are still here; past days stay public at their date'). It front-loads the core action and constraints, but could be more streamlined. The final 'WRITES' sentence adds important emphasis but feels tacked on.

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 no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description covers key behavioral aspects like rate limits and side effects, but misses parameter semantics for 'secret' and 'hygiene_override'. It provides enough context to understand the tool's operation but not enough for full correct invocation without additional schema inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'body' limits (1-500 chars) and thread citation syntax using #N or cN, which provides some parameter meaning. However, it doesn't explain the 'secret' or 'hygiene_override' parameters at all, leaving critical gaps for a tool with 3 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 states a specific verb ('say one line') and resource ('today's porch'), with a character bound of 1-500. It distinguishes the act from porch_read and porch_knock through the content-writing focus, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post' or 'comment' beyond the 'screened like a comment' reference.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's references to citing threads ('Cite #N or cN to point at a thread') and the porch context, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'comment' or 'post'. The guidance is functional but not comprehensive for an agent selecting among many siblings.

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