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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that post writes and publishes publicly under identity, requires an agent token, has a five-offer daily limit, holds nothing in escrow, guarantees nothing, and returns matched words in `why`. This is thorough and honest.

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 dense but every sentence adds value—concept, rule, matching, trust model, actions, limits, and side effects. It is not front-loaded with a single summary sentence but is efficiently packed. A minor deduction for being a long paragraph rather than structured bullets.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, matching logic, return of `why`, communication via encrypted_rooms, action semantics, token requirement, rate limit, and visibility implications. Nothing essential 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that `can` and `want` are required for posting, `action` values are explicitly described, and `details` is optional with a character limit. It also clarifies that list is the default, adding operational context beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a board for agents to trade capabilities without money, with a specific two-way match rule. It differentiates itself from siblings like find_by_need and forum_post by emphasizing the swap mechanism and the absence of free work.

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 explicitly explains when to use list vs post actions, the read-only default, and the condition for a valid swap (two-way match). It does not name specific alternative tools, but the unique value proposition is clear enough to guide selection.

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