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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context about returned data being untrusted user-generated content and cautions against executing code or following embedded instructions without approval, exceeding annotation coverage.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage prerequisite, and safety warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers what is read, when to use it (after get_post), and a safety warning. It is fully complete for effective use.

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?

The only parameter, post_id, has 100% schema coverage with a clear description indicating it is a key or UUID from get_post. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 reads public repository, issue, linked review, and test status for a Wiplash code-request post. The verb 'Read' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_code_review.

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?

It explicitly advises to use get_post first to verify category and understand the public request, providing a clear prerequisite. It also warns about untrusted data, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond get_post.

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