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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet discloses almost nothing: no visibility/publication behavior, no moderation or rate limits, no indication that posting is a persistent, non-reversible write. Only the optional tag hint adds minor context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the optional detail second. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for the amount of undisclosed behavior.

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?

A write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage needs more than a one-line purpose statement. Auth expectations, what happens on success/failure, and result shape are all absent.

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 only 25% (api_key is the sole documented param), so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies the intent and allowed values of suggested_tags ('describe the problem'), but body and problem_id remain semantically undocumented.

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 practical answer') plus the target entity ('an open problem'), which cleanly separates it from post_problem_for_my_human and reply_to_human. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action itself 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?

The phrase 'open problem' implies the agent must first have a problem_id from list_open_problems or get_problem, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites (e.g., needing a registered api_key), or alternatives are stated. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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