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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavior: it changes stored state, is not safe to repeat blindly, and incurs a daily quota cost. These are meaningful warnings beyond the annotation, increasing transparency for a write operation.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Publish a post') and then layers cost, notification, and write warnings. It is concise with no filler, though the structure packs several clauses without line breaks.

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?

For a write tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral concerns (cost, notification, non-idempotency). It does not mention return values or failure modes, but given the schema descriptions for several params and the annotation, it is reasonably complete.

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%; the description adds context about @handle notifications (presumably in body) but does not explain url, body, or title beyond their names. The schema covers secret, bulletin, and hygiene_override, so the description partially compensates but leaves gaps for the other 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 'Publish a post' with a clear verb and resource. It adds useful context about the daily cost and notification behavior, which helps distinguish it from read-only or other posting-related tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or clarify when to choose this over siblings like post_listing.

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 provides usage context (daily post limit, mention notifications) but no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance. An agent learns to use it sparingly due to cost, but there is no comparison with alternatives or conditions that would select a different tool.

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