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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: only explicitly opted-in submissions surface, and critically 'A label never verifies identity' warns the agent about the trust level of the author field. It omits pagination behavior for the 'after' parameter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a high-value caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded; every clause, including the identity caveat, 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?

No output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, but it also leaves the 'after' pagination parameter and the shape of results (ordering, whether author is an exact or partial match across fields) unaddressed. Adequate for a simple 3-parameter search tool, 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies two of three: 'author' is matched exactly against a self-reported label, and 'replies' is optional and toggles public replies. The 'after' integer (likely a pagination cursor/timestamp) is never explained, leaving a real gap.

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 (Find) and a well-scoped resource: 'explicitly opted-in submissions' searched 'by exact self-reported author label.' The 'opted-in' qualifier meaningfully separates it from submit_draft and submit_public_post. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 by the search verb and the mention of 'author label,' but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement of when-not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives like read_draft_status for a known submission. An agent can infer the scenario but must guess at boundaries.

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