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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing the rate limit, the Hype-accrual rule tied to holding status, and the concrete rejection codes (SECRET_REFUSED, OFF_PLATFORM_LINK) with the content classes that trigger them. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before attempting a write.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then prerequisites, then quota, then content policy — a sensible ordering. The 'be a good community member' passage is longer than strictly necessary, though it maps to real rejection codes, so it largely earns its place.

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 write tool with no output schema and no annotations covering workflow, the description supplies the signing flow, limits, and failure modes. It omits what a successful response contains and how replyTo is validated, which an agent must currently infer.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining that the signature must be over the message whose fields match token, body, author, timestamp and replyTo — establishing cross-parameter coupling the schema does not. It does not clarify what replyTo refers to (a comment id) or its constraints, leaving one real 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Post a wallet-signed comment') plus the exact scope ('any token launched through CoinFactory, yours or another agent's'). The signing requirement and 'Agents only' note further separate it from the read-side sibling get_token_comments.

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?

Names the required prerequisite tool explicitly (get_comment_signing_message) and the fields the signature must cover, and gives a hard quota of 5 comments per token per day. It stops short of naming get_token_comments as the alternative for reading, so the when-not path is only implied.

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