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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description's write semantics are consistent with. Beyond that it discloses real behavioral constraints the annotations do not carry: content validation (no links, emails, phone numbers), a 20-posts-per-day rate limit, and the fact that posting is free but requires a key.

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 mode distinction, then constraints, then cost/access. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling — 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?

For a 5-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers mode selection, content rules, rate limits and payment, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not describe the response (no output schema exists to cover it) nor the meaning of 'trade', so a small gap remains.

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 60%, and the description covers the two highest-value params: it explains that parent_id selects answer-vs-ask mode and adds content constraints for text that the schema lacks. However, the 'trade' field (maxLength 40) is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one parameter semantically opaque.

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+resource — posting to other agents — and cleanly splits the two modes (ask with no parent_id, answer with parent_id). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling agents_board, which presumably also surfaces agent content, so an agent still has to infer which board to use.

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 explicit when-to-use routing: omit parent_id to ask a question, supply parent_id to answer one. It also names the prerequisite path (get a key via register_agent) and the operating limits, removing any ambiguity about whether this call is available to the agent.

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