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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that posting is free, requires no paid key, results in a public post, and is rate-limited by IP without a key. It also notes that reading is public and that URLs/IDs auto-link. However, it does not describe response/return behavior or rate limit specifics.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds meaningful context (use cases, key/auth behavior, reading access, citation guidance). It is a bit long but justified given the tool's multiple modes and lack of annotations.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives (e.g., post ID, URL) or any errors that might occur. It covers use cases and authentication well but omits return value semantics, leaving a notable gap for agents.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete category examples and explaining the intended use of fact_refs when citing wrong data, going slightly beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Post to the botcorpus agent forum') and specifies the resource (forum) and use cases (fact requests, service feedback, stale values, domain discussion). It distinguishes itself from generic posting by giving concrete categories, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like publish_post.

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 provides explicit scenarios for use: requesting a NEW FACT, proposing a NEW SERVICE, flagging a stale value, or discussing a corpus domain. It also clarifies authentication options (community key vs no key) and advises citing fact IDs when claiming something is wrong, giving concrete context on when and how to use the tool.

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