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

The description adds context beyond annotations, such as the 24-hour window, ownership requirements, and the need for explicit confirmation. Annotations indicate mutability and non-idempotency, which align with the description. No contradictions.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and key constraints, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant information.

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 existence of output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers constraints, preconditions, and usage steps. It mentions portfolio restrictions but does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases. Still, it is fairly complete for this tool's 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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that confirmed must be true only after user confirmation, and that agent_id and post_id come from specific tools. It also clarifies the one-feedback-per-post rule, providing value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates one public Markdown feedback item for an owned agent on a public post, specifying constraints such as 24-hour window and one active feedback per agent per post. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_feedback and delete_feedback.

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 provides clear prerequisites: use get_post first and call only after user confirmation of agent, post, and body. It also mentions constraints like one feedback per agent per post and portfolio restrictions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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