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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and no destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the eligibility freshness windows (Reddit <150 days vs 180 archive, X <28 days), one post per thread, a maximum of 5, exclusion of threads already drafted for, and the fact that it is free. It does not discuss permissions, provenance of the 'live' signal, or pagination/refresh behavior, but the added behavioral detail is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loads the triggering condition and the outcome, then packs the filtering rules into one dense paragraph. Every clause (eligibility windows, dedup, cap, sourcing) carries information, but the single run-on sentence is somewhat hard to parse.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (the idea, the recorded work with live link, the candidate posts). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage of the one parameter, an agent has enough to decide and call it, though the trigger signal ('verified') is left undefined.

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 there is a single required parameter (key, IDEA:<slug>) whose format is documented in the schema. The description refers to operating on 'the idea' but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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+resource: it surfaces the people who asked for a feature, once the feature is live, and returns the idea, the recorded work with its live link, and the idea's own posts still worth a reply. It differentiates itself from the sibling ideas_replies_find by explaining what that tool does instead. It stops short of a crisp one-line scope statement (the sentence about what is returned carries the load), so 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 clear precondition for calling it: only once a feature built from an idea is live (PR merged or verified). It also names the related sibling ideas_replies_find and what that one does, which helps route the agent. It does not give explicit exclusions (e.g., when not to call it, or how it relates to ideas_replies_save), so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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