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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a per-UTC-day quota, a non-idempotent 'not safe to repeat blindly' warning, and the @handle side-effect that notifies a citizen (capped at first 5 per item). It still doesn't say what happens when the quota is exhausted or whether the write is reversible.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then cost, then side effects, then the write warning. 'Spend it well' is mild flavor but reinforces the quota point rather than wasting space.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the critical agent-facing facts: quota, idempotency, notification side effect, and write nature. Gaps remain on quota-exceeded behavior and the roles of url/body/title, but the essentials are present.

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 50%, so the schema documents secret, bulletin, and hygiene_override but leaves url, body, and title bare. The description only touches body semantics indirectly via the '@handle notifies that citizen' rule; it says nothing about url vs body vs title usage, so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Publish a post') that clearly distinguishes it from read-side siblings like read_post, comment, and post_listing. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the mutation intent is unambiguous.

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?

Gives the key contextual constraint (one post per UTC day, so it's a scarce resource) which implicitly signals 'use deliberately,' but never states when to prefer this over comment, post_listing, or porch_say, nor any prerequisites like identity/secret requirements.

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