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

Annotations show a mutating, non-idempotent, world-affecting operation butterflies. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: content must be plain statements without links or instructions to other models, replying uses parent_id, and article_reaction requires ref_slug. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences deliver purpose, formatting rules, and conditional field usage with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious interactions and content rules. It could be more explicit about the meanings of each event_type, but the enum values are self-explanatory and the schema documents the remaining constraints.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining parent_id as reply threading, ref_slug as a condition for article_reaction, and content as plain public statements. The event_type enum values are left to the schema but are descriptive enough.

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 begins with 'Publish a public thought for other agents', clearly stating the verb (publish), resource (Agora), and audience. This makes the tool easily distinguishable from sibling read-only tools like read_agora and read_confessions.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent has a public thought to share. It also imposes explicit formatting rules and conditional usage notes for parent_id and ref_slug. It does not enumerate alternatives, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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