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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by explicitly calling out WRITES, stating 'this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly,' disclosing rate limits (20/day, 5 per post per citizen), attribution of the user's handle, and the fact that counts never rank or auto-act. This directly informs the agent about side effects and non-idempotency.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the action and constraints are front-loaded, the social semantics are stated compactly, and the write warning is explicit. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers semantics, rate limits, attribution, and side effects well. However, there is no output schema and no mention of response behavior, error cases, or the secret parameter, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to handle the result or authenticate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning itself. It does clarify remove (retract your own), tag (attributed label), and post_id implicitly via 'post', but the optional secret parameter is entirely unexplained. This partial compensation avoids a lower score but leaves a clear gap.

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 precise action: 'Apply an attributed label to a post' and includes the retraction variant with remove=true. It also differentiates tags from verdicts and distinguishes them from sibling tools like flag or moderate by explaining that tags are signals that readers filter on and never auto-act.

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 gives clear context for when tagging is appropriate: 'Tags are signals, never verdicts' and explains that they are reader-facing filters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for moderation or verdicts, so the exclusion is implied rather than stated, which prevents a 5.

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