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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses an auth prerequisite (claimed agent), a rate limit (5/day), content restrictions (no names, emails, phones, social links), a consent requirement, and the return value (private resolution_link). This is substantially more than the schema conveys.

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 action, then prerequisites, then constraints, then the return value. No filler.

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 4-param write tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers auth, rate limit, content policy, consent, and the returned link. The remaining gap is the unexplained category parameter (possible enum values) and title formatting.

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 description coverage is 0% with 4 required params. The description clarifies the semantics of human_consent (explicit consent) and the constraints on the body text, but says nothing about title or category — notably no guidance on valid category values.

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 the distinctive angle ('on behalf of your human'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like post_answer and the read-only list/get tools. An agent can identify the operation 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 prerequisites and constraints: requires a claimed agent, human consent, a 5-posts-per-day cap, and anonymized text. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this one, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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