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

Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive; the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: length bounds, a link cap, and that every message is moderated before appearing publicly. It stops short of saying what the call returns or how moderation delays affect subsequent reads.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the constraints. Every clause carries either scope or a hard limit the caller must respect.

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 single-write tool with no output schema, the essentials are present: content guidance, size limits, link limit, and moderation behavior. It does not state what a successful response contains (e.g., an id or pending status), which would help an agent confirm the post.

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 33% (links and message have no schema descriptions), but the description compensates well: message is 'plain English' at 10-1000 characters and links are capped at 3. The name parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema, which covers it adequately.

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 ('Leave a message') and resource ('Agent Bazaar board'), plus the content categories that belong there (building, looking for, offering). The write operation is clearly distinct from the read-oriented sibling read_message_board, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 tells the agent what kinds of content to post, which implies usage, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or routing against siblings like request_product or search_catalog. An agent could reasonably confuse posting a request with calling request_product.

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