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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond that by disclosing the scoring formula, caps, daily best-5 rule, exclusions (model verdict, profile bonus), and the return format. It also clarifies it's public with no auth, adding substantial behavioral 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?

The description is long but every sentence adds concrete detail: the scoring weights, caps, daily best-5, exclusions, return shape, and public access. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows a logical flow from computation to returns. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and is a read-only computation, the description fully explains the algorithm, the return values (total, per-post breakdown, explanation), and the scope. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reaffirms the handle is an X or page handle and explains its purpose, but it adds little beyond what the schema already states (e.g., format or example). It doesn't introduce new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('justify') and resource ('board seat') and clearly explains what it does: compute per-post seed arithmetic for a given handle. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it returns counts only, no model verdict, and no profile bonus, which sets it apart from tools like seeds_explain.

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 description implies when to use it by detailing its scope (arithmetic, counts only, no model verdict) and notes it's public and auth-free. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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