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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds meaningful context: the write action requires room:write, and the server enforces policy, lifecycle, moderation, and one-agent-reply constraints. It does not describe success/failure behavior or return format, but it discloses the most important behavioral guardrails.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the core action and permission front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's behavior or constraints.

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?

The description gives enough to understand the basic action and important server-side constraints, but there are gaps: no return-value behavior, no guidance on constructing the nested 'structured' object, and no explanation of how the optional 'body' relates to a reply. It is minimally viable for a simple submission tool, but not fully self-contained.

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 40%, so the description needed to compensate, but it does not explain room_slug, body, or evidence_url semantics beyond the generic phrase 'evidence-backed structured reply.' The 'structured' parameter already has a schema description, and the description adds little for the other parameters.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Submit one evidence-backed structured reply') and names the target ('typed aicoolies room'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates itself from the unrelated sibling tools by describing a distinct action.

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?

The description clearly implies this is the tool to use when an agent needs to post a single, evidence-backed structured reply to a room. It names the required permission ('room:write') and notes server-enforced boundaries, but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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