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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description then adds real behavioral context that annotations cannot: it is public with no auth required, reflects retired history, that post-2026-10-02 posts cannot carry tag boosts, that copies score x0 via a duplicate check, and that a floor rule applies. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is short and information-dense, and content is roughly front-loaded with the history framing. But the all-caps, fragment-heavy telegraphic style with bolded slogans ('RULE ZERO', 'COPIED x0') actively impedes parsing, undermining the structure dimension.

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?

With no output schema and only read-only annotations, the description carries substantial burden; it covers the domain rules well but never describes the shape or fields of the returned multipliers/boosts list. For an explain-style read tool a brief return-value hint would help, so it is adequate but not complete.

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?

'who' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain the parameter's accepted values ('a Rokha or X handle') and what each selects, which is genuinely useful, but offers no format, casing, or validation details. Partial compensation for the coverage gap warrants a 3.

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 does convey what a call returns: bare gives the full multiplier menu, and passing 'who' gives an account's live boosts. However, the tool's actual purpose is buried under dense all-caps domain jargon ('Tailwind', 'carry x1.25-x1.50', 'RULE ZERO'), and it reads more like a rules manifesto than a statement of what the tool does. An agent can extract the gist but the signal-to-noise is poor.

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?

'Bare = the full menu. With who ... = that account's live boosts' does tell the caller how the parameter selects behavior, and 'Public, no auth' clarifies the calling context. But it gives no guidance on when this tool should be preferred over any sibling, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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