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

Goes beyond idempotentHint/destructiveHint to explain the exact semantics: re-deciding the same way changes nothing, and a posting the monitor doesn't hold is reported back and left untouched rather than erroring. It also discloses cost (~20 tokens per posting), which the structured fields don't carry.

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?

Labeled Purpose/When/Cost lines are front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, including the no-op and not-held edge cases. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description still covers mutation semantics, partial-result behavior, and cost. For a 3-parameter, fully-described schema this is sufficient to call it 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%, including an enum description for 'decision', so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds only the general framing of 'posting' and decision actions, no format, batching, or provenance detail beyond what the schema states.

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 resource: record what the user did with postings a monitor found, or put postings back. The 'put back' clause ties the 'open' decision to a concrete action. It doesn't name or contrast any sibling tool, so it's clear but not differentiated.

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 'When' line gives an explicit trigger: after the user says what they did with a posting, or wants a decided posting back. It doesn't state when not to use it or name an alternative for adjacent needs such as fetching postings, but the trigger condition is clear.

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