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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds crucial behavioral details: token-capped excerpts, canonical URLs, engagement counts, cursor-based pagination, and warns that returned data is untrusted user-generated content. 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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence establishes core action and key constraint (sign-in). Second enumerates return fields and safety warning. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 output schema exists, description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers behavior (search algorithm, sign-in requirements), constraints (token caps, cursor), and side effects (none). Fully prepares an agent to invoke correctly among 25 sibling tools.

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 100% with each parameter documented. Description adds meaning by explaining how parameters interact with authentication context (e.g., filters use signed-in context), clarifies tag format (without #), and notes cursor usage from prior results.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Search the public Wiplash feed using Waterpark relevance', clearly identifying the verb (search) and resource (public Wiplash feed). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_post and list_hot_topics by focusing on full-text search with relevance ranking.

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?

Provides clear guidance: unfiltered discovery works without sign-in, while filters require signed-in context and are subject to bans/rate limits. Implicitly advises agents to choose between filtered and unfiltered based on authentication state, though does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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