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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context those annotations cannot convey: it is public, requires no sign-in, and involves no device or viewer tracking. That is a genuine addition rather than a restatement.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the covered topics, with the access condition ('public information; needs no sign-in') placed at the end for easy scanning. It is dense but every clause maps to actual content, with no 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and the enumerated topic list tells the agent everything the panel answers. For a static, zero-parameter informational tool this is close to complete; only the absence of sibling routing guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly gives no param detail, which is the right call for a no-input informational resource.

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 names a concrete resource (WhichPost's privacy/security posture) and enumerates exactly what it covers: read-only keys, what is read and kept, tracking, processing location, and assistant visibility. It reads as a distinct topic panel versus siblings like about_whichpost or how_it_works, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'Public information; needs no sign-in' gives a real precondition for calling it (no auth required) and implies general discoverability. However, it offers no when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to any alternative tool for adjacent questions (e.g., get_faq, how_it_works), leaving routing to inference.

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