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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and handles it well. It explicitly discloses side effects ('Stores nothing, no nonce, no counter'), output behavior ('exact receipt'), validation behavior ('full validation'), and failure semantics ('refusals match the write exactly').

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 entire description fits in one efficient sentence, front-loads the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful behavioral information. No filler or repetition.

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 dry-run tool with a rich input schema but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential missing context: no state mutation, exact receipt semantics, and identical refusal behavior. The parameters are well-covered by the schema, making the overall definition 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 high at 80%, so the schema already documents most parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable under the baseline but not additive.

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: 'Dry-run create_post' with 'full validation and the exact receipt the write would return.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the actual mutation sibling create_post by emphasizing the dry-run nature.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to validate a post and see the receipt without committing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'Dry-run create_post' and 'Stores nothing' establish the key contrast with create_post.

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