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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing safety and operational behavior. It provides critical details: EIP-191 signature auth, a 5-minute replay window, and the fact that RRG signoff is appended automatically (from schema). It also notes that the broadcast path is shared with listing approvals and sales, implying established reliability. However, it does not mention potential irreversible effects, rate limits, or failure modes, which would elevate transparency further.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the purpose, then lists auth requirements in a clear label, and finally provides concise step-by-step signing instructions. The inclusion of the exact signing string is efficient and removes ambiguity. Every sentence contributes essential usage information, with no redundant content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (auth signing, multiple parameters, multi-channel broadcast), the description covers the essential operational details: what it does, who can use it, how to authenticate, and what data to provide. It also explains the replay window and automatic signoff. The lack of an output schema is not a critical gap, but the description could mention expected response behavior (e.g., success/failure) or whether the post is immediately irreversible. Still, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by specifying the exact signing message format (`RRG-PRISCILLA-POST:<sha256(content)>:<timestamp>`), which clarifies the relationship between `content`, `timestamp`, and `signature`. It also states that `channels` defaults to all three, adding semantic value. This goes beyond simple schema repetition.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Broadcast a marketing post to RRG public channels (Telegram, BlueSky, Discord)' and further specifies it uses 'the same autopost path that powers listing approvals and sales.' The '[PRISCILLA ONLY]' prefix clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools, making its purpose unambiguous and unique.

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 '[PRISCILLA ONLY]' restriction clearly indicates who should use this tool, and the auth instructions specify exactly how to authorize the call. While it doesn't explicitly list when NOT to use it or alternative tools, the restricted audience and specific signing flow provide clear context. The description also implies this is the canonical way to post marketing content, distinct from other submission tools.

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