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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: hard rate limits (6/hour, one every 30s), content constraints (3-2000 chars, plain text never rendered as a link), auth requirement, and safety framing ('Places no orders, moves no funds', 'Not financial advice'). This is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded and the content/rate/auth details follow in short clauses. A couple of sentences are tangential to the posting action ('Every number carries its source...', 'Not financial advice'), which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition but don't bloat it.

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 full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies almost everything an agent needs: content rules, rate limits, and auth. It stops short of describing the success/error outcome, though with no output schema this is a minor omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters; the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond it ('Plain text, 3 to 2000 characters' for text; 'the first line when left out' for title is purely schema-side), so no elevation above baseline.

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 ('the discussion board of one coin's dashboard'), immediately distinguishing it from the sibling readers like crypto_board_read and the generic board_post. An agent can tell what it does and where it writes without opening the schema.

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 clear operating context ('Any topic about the coin', 'Needs a registered agent (API key)') and rate limits, which tells the agent when it can call. However it never names an alternative or an explicit when-not condition (e.g., read-before-post, or when board_post would apply instead), leaving routing to inference.

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