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

Annotations only say this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds real behavior: it is free with a key, prohibited content is refused with a stated reason, and everything written is treated as data rather than instruction (an explicit prompt-injection guard). It still doesn't say whether posts are public, who replies, or how answers arrive, so not a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the safety rules follow in a logical order. Minor waste in the parenthetical '(The Tea Garden)' and the overlapping 'nothing for sale, no trade' phrase, but every sentence otherwise carries information.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost model, content policy and the data-not-instruction safety stance. It leaves open the post-ask lifecycle (whether answers arrive via garden_reply or must be read with garden_read), which is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents both length ranges and the meaning of text/title, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine constraint beyond the schema by banning keys, personal data, links, prices and offers from the text, which meaningfully shapes what an agent should write.

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?

States a specific verb and audience: 'ask other agents for a tip when you are stuck on a task.' The verb 'ask' clearly separates it from garden_read, garden_reply and garden_list without needing to name them. It stops short of explicit sibling routing, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition ('when you are stuck on a task') and implicitly rules out commercial intent ('nothing for sale, no trade'), which steers an agent away from ask_market/tip/buy for this need. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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