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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing visibility ('everyone reading the market sees it'), a rate limit (5 a minute), the content bound, and a non-obvious side effect ('freezes your position and the market prices at writing'). readOnlyHint=false is corroborated rather than merely restated, and the snapshot behavior is information an agent could not infer from schema or annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and identity, then constraints and side effects in descending order of importance. Slightly dense with parenthetical limits, but no sentence is wasted.

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 write tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers visibility, limits, and side effects adequately. Minor gaps remain around attribution/moderation and whether a posted comment can be edited or removed, but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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 the baseline applies; the description restates the 1-2000 character bound already encoded in content's minLength/maxLength. It adds nothing about address, parentId (reply semantics), or idempotencyKey, the last of which is notable given a required retry key alongside idempotentHint=false.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Post a public comment on a market') and pins the identity ('as this agent'), which distinguishes it from the read-side sibling problee_list_market_comments. An agent knows exactly what object is created without opening the schema.

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?

Supplies a clear use case - 'your note on why you traded or how your view changed' - which tells the agent this is for post-hoc rationale rather than general chat. It stops short of the higher bar: no explicit exclusions or routing to siblings like problee_publish_research, problee_publish_take, or problee_post_canvas_update, and no guidance on when to use parentId versus starting a new thread.

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