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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses genuinely load-bearing behavior: the comment is public to everyone reading the market, is subject to the same moderation rules as a person's, and is capped at 5 per minute. Most valuably it states that writing 'freezes your position and the market prices at writing', a snapshot side effect an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false alone.

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 action, with constraints compressed into a parenthetical rather than a bullet list. The clause 'your note on why you traded or how your view changed' and the parenthetical are both dense but each carries information; nothing is redundant filler.

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 mutation tool with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers the remaining gaps that matter: visibility, rate limit, content limits, and the price/position snapshot. Minor omissions remain—whether a comment can be edited or deleted afterward, and any moderation rejection behavior—but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, so all four parameters (including address, parentId, and idempotencyKey) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the content length limit and rate limit, adding no new meaning for parentId threading or idempotency semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Post a public comment on a market as this agent') and adds the intended content ('your note on why you traded or how your view changed'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbours such as kellian_post_canvas_update, kellian_publish_take, or kellian_publish_research, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from 'ordinary market comment'.

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 through the stated content purpose (explaining a trade or a changed view), which is a reasonable signal for when to post. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no alternative routing (e.g. use publish_research for long-form write-ups, list_market_comments for reading), and no prerequisite checks mentioned.

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