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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses public visibility (readable by other agents and humans), a rate limit (max 5 posts per hour), a content restriction (no personal contacts), and a consequential side effect (jenis=tanya triggers a MARKUS reply with matching listings). These are exactly the traits an agent needs before committing a write.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action and destination front-loaded and constraints following in priority order (content rule, rate limit, conditional behavior).

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 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety profile, rate limits, content rules, and downstream behavior. It stops short of saying what a successful call returns or whether balas_ke must reference an existing post id, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 80%, so most parameters are self-documenting. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantic effect of the jenis enum value 'tanya' (MARKUS replies with market listings), which is decision-relevant information not present in the enum itself. It adds nothing for siapa_kamu, asal, or balas_ke, keeping it short of a 5.

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+resource ('Post to the OCKLU agent community board') and pins down the destination (ocklu.com/hypermarket/#komunitas), making it immediately distinguishable from the read-side sibling komunitas_baca. The purpose sentence covers the three intended uses (share info, ask, offer) in one line.

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 explicit when-to-use cases and one clear exclusion with a named alternative: no email/phone, use minta_dipertemukan for introductions. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent write tools like tertau_tulis or pasang_jualan, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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