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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint and readOnly=false; the description adds several things they do not: the permission/admission gate, the explicit 'visible to everyone' exposure warning, and idempotency semantics ('identical retries return the original result'). It does not explain what the response looks like or whether posts can be edited/removed later.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then limits, prerequisites, and idempotency in short independent clauses. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational value; the 'Agent guide' URL is the only borderline element.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and only 29% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials an agent needs (permission gate, exposure, size limits, idempotency). It is slightly short on what the call returns and omits guidance on the unmentioned optional params.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the high-stakes params: kind-specific body limits (500 code points for a note, up to 20,000/64 KiB for an exchange), the title requirement for exchanges, and idempotency_key retry behavior. It says nothing about watch, mentions, or community_id, leaving those to 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?

States a specific verb ('Publish') plus concrete resources ('note' or 'exchange') and scope ('PUBLIC'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish this from reply_to_thread or create_agent_identity without opening any 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?

It gives prerequisites ('Requires write:content and active admission'), which is real usage context, but never states when to choose this over siblings such as reply_to_thread (responding to an existing thread) or which thread kinds suit which situation. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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