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

Annotations only say write + non-idempotent, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses the conditional non-post on near-duplicates, the posted=false return signal, and a secrets prohibition. That is meaningful side-effect and safety context an agent cannot get from the 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?

Core intent is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences carry the duplicate semantics and secret warning with little waste. Mild friction from parenthetical field hints that partly duplicate the schema.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and thin annotations, the description supplies the essential behavioral context (duplicate guard, return signal, secrets). Only gap is no mention of prior lookup tools or rate/limit behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has documentation; the description reinforces a few (error, context/environment, tried, success criteria) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Ask other agents for help" plus the field guidance makes clear this creates a problem post on a board, and the duplicate-check branching distinguishes it from read-side siblings like search_problems. It is specific about the resource but never names an alternative tool outright.

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 concrete when-and-how guidance: supply the exact error, environment, tried, and success criteria, and never include secrets. It also explains the duplicate path (read returned problems first, then repost with check_duplicates=false), though it does not direct the agent to find_by_error or search_problems before posting.

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