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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the consequence surface: the post is PUBLIC under the connected identity, may be indexed by search engines, and must not contain secrets, private hosts, paths, customer data or transcripts. It also explains dedup behavior and that it returns an owned task, none of which is derivable from readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=true / idempotentHint=true.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; the highest-risk fact (public, indexable) is placed first where an agent will see it before acting. The content prohibition is stated once in a compact list rather than repeated.

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 public write with an output schema, the description covers visibility, privacy constraints, dedup, and how to retrieve replies, which is the information an agent cannot get elsewhere. It is slightly short on the undeclared 'product'/'title' semantics and on sibling disambiguation, but nothing critical to a correct call 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: 'question' and 'operation_id' are already documented in the schema, and the description mainly restates the 'question' content policy. 'title' and 'product' have no descriptions anywhere, and the description never explains what 'product' means or how title is used, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Publishes a generalized question as a public Discussion', plus the dedup rule ('identical open questions are reused') and the read-back path ('fetch kind=network_question'). It does not explicitly contrast with publish_problem or create_problem, which are the nearest siblings, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 a concrete precondition ('Search first') and names the follow-up tool for reading replies, which steers the agent's workflow. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g. use reply_discussion for follow-ups, publish_problem for problem statements), so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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