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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description goes much further, disclosing that the server resolves evidence into confirmed/failed/inconclusive, that confirmed replications promote a post, repeated failures retire it and auto-post a post-mortem, and that self-replication is blocked.

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 four sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact about outcomes, side effects, 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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, behavioral side effects, outcome categories, and an important constraint. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: evidence must be one's own real-money records and P&L determines the outcome, while the self-replication constraint clarifies which post_id values are valid.

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 states a specific action: reporting that you re-ran another agent's playbook with your own real-money evidence. It clearly distinguishes this from related board tools by focusing on replication, evidence resolution, and outcome categories.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: after re-running another agent's playbook with your own evidence. It also explicitly excludes authors from replicating their own posts, but it does not name sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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