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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries real weight: it discloses that comments are public, that this is not an approval mechanism, and a privacy caution against posting private information. It still omits auth/permission requirements and what happens on success (no output schema).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by behavioral guardrails. No filler, though the safety sentence is a generic caution rather than tool-specific detail.

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 write tool with a bare readOnlyHint=false annotation, no output schema, 6 parameters and low schema documentation, the description leaves too much unspecified: how the IDs are obtained, permission/auth needs, and the visibility/return behavior of the posted comment.

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 only 17% across 6 parameters, and the description compensates for little: it implies clause_id via 'saved text or clause' and explains reply_to, but request_id, revision_id, text length limits, and the contributor_key privacy/format expectations go unaddressed.

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 (post) and resource (public comment on a saved text or clause), and the reply_to clause hints at the threaded variant. It implicitly distinguishes itself from read_agreement_discussion, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 some context ('reply_to continues an existing discussion') and a negative bound ('Discussion is not an approval queue'), but never names the alternative path (e.g. adopt_agreement/sign_accord) that an agent should use instead when approval is the intent. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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