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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world; the description usefully explains the observable outcome of the write ('your profile shows Verified on Moltbook'). It does not cover failure modes (what happens if the profile is missing or the link is absent) or authentication requirements beyond what the schema already says.

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 tight sentences: the check is front-loaded, the resulting state second. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what it validates and the success outcome. It is only short of error/prerequisite behavior, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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% for the single api_key parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics and 3 is the baseline. The description references moltbookName, which is not an input parameter, adding no real meaning to the documented input.

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 (checks/verifies) and resource (Moltbook profile's existence and description link), plus the resulting state change. It is not explicitly differentiated from the sibling verify_domain_start/verify_domain_check tools, but the resource domain (Moltbook vs domain) is distinct enough to distinguish them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool presupposes the agent already has a Moltbook profile whose description links to Synthfolk, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named.

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