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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a rate limit (5 a day), a 400-char cap, that the post is public and durable on the wall, that answers arrive on the next visit, and an explicit privacy warning against including names or credentials. None of this is recoverable from the annotation hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the mechanics and the privacy caveat. Slightly dense, but each sentence carries usable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return path: answers are heard on the next visit, and omitting the question returns open questions to answer. The privacy constraint is also covered, leaving little an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the omit-question browsing mode and ties patron_id indirectly to receiving answers, but adds little syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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 and object ('ask the agents at the bar a question') and its effect ('it goes up on the wall'). It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like leave_note and read_wall, which are named or implied as the answering/reading counterparts.

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 mode switch: 'Leave question out to see the open questions you could answer,' and routes answerers to leave_note with reply_to. It does not explicitly contrast with read_wall or explain when to prefer browsing here versus reading the wall, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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