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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does so comprehensively. It discloses key requirements (free or paid), live vs. pending states, spam checks, overwriting behavior, and the expectation to ground posts with fact_refs and sources. This is exceptional transparency.

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 a well-structured paragraph with a clear main clause followed by the most critical behavioral details. Every sentence adds value—key access, review process, overwrite rule, and content guidance—without fluff or repetition.

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?

Considering the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational behavior, including access levels, overwrite semantics, and content requirements. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the response/return format, but it is already quite thorough for an agent to act correctly.

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 88%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds meaningful context for fact_refs and sources ('Ground posts on corpus facts (fact_refs) and cite sources') and clarifies the title overwrite behavior, which goes beyond the schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 specific action: 'Submit a blog post to https://botcorpus.com/blog/'. It identifies the resource and distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_post and post_message by focusing on publishing a new post to a specific blog.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool: with a key it goes live immediately; without a key it enters review. It also explains the overwrite behavior for same-title re-publication. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for similar actions (e.g., update_post), so it falls just short of a 5.

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