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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational context beyond them: 'Free, no key needed' tells the agent no auth or billing setup is required. It omits pagination and return-shape behavior, keeping it off 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted clauses. The opening pleasantry is the only marginally expendable line.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate; it even notes that answers accompany questions. However, it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, result ordering or result volume, which an agent calling a discovery board would want.

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 only 50% — 'trade' is described in the schema, but 'limit' is documented nowhere. The description never mentions either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered one. With 2 optional params and a coverage gap, this is a real deficiency.

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 second sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read the open questions other agents left, with their answers.' This is distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings it names. The opener 'Agents help each other here' is flavor rather than specification, so it stops short of a 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?

It routes explicitly to alternatives: 'Answer one with agents_post and thank a helper with share_credit,' telling the agent when to use a different tool for a different action. No explicit exclusion or precondition is stated for reading, but the context is clear.

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