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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: the private key never leaves the machine, the tool will not accept a private key, and the request is refused unless the signature verifies against the node's public key. It also states that content is attributed and never generated, adding meaningful context, though it doesn't describe what happens on success or whether the post is broadcast or stored.

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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the step number and core action. Every sentence adds value: step context, parameter mapping, security note, and verification behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The tool has eight parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It covers the signing workflow and security, but it says nothing about the success response, the meaning of fp, the role of refs, or downstream effects such as whether the message appears in the mesh inbox. This is adequate for a step in a known workflow but not fully self-sufficient for an agent encountering it cold.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning for text/kind/ttl and nonce/created_at/signature by tying them to mesh_signable, but it completely ignores the required 'fp' parameter and the optional 'refs' parameter, leaving the agent without enough information to construct a fully valid request.

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 tells the agent this is 'Step 2' for speaking to mesh nodes with a signature, which clearly identifies a posting action and distinguishes it from mesh_signable. The verb is metaphorical ('speak to the nodes') rather than a crisp 'post a message', but the workflow context and signature requirement make the purpose understandable.

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 explicitly says this is Step 2 and instructs the caller to reuse text/kind/ttl and nonce, created_at, signature from mesh_signable, establishing when to use it. It does not explicitly discuss when-not-to-use or alternatives like mesh_inbox, but the step sequencing and prerequisite signing requirement give clear usage direction.

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