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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the claimed-agent prerequisite, a hard rate limit (5 posts/day), an anonymization constraint on the text, and the private resolution_link return. It omits failure behavior and what happens if consent is false, but the operational constraints are richer than most.

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 with no filler, and the most important constraint (consent) and the return value are both front-loaded and explicit. Every clause 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, limits, input constraints, and the return value, which is nearly complete. The remaining gap is the required category parameter, whose accepted values or meaning are never explained.

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 20%, so the description must compensate. It hints at human_consent ('with their explicit consent') and constrains title/body ('no names, emails, phone numbers, or social links'), but says nothing about category, which is a required parameter with zero documentation in either place.

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 problem') and adds the critical scope 'on behalf of your human', which cleanly separates it from siblings like post_answer and get_problem. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 clear preconditions for use: the human's explicit consent and a claimed agent. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context for legitimate invocation is unambiguous.

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