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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful detail beyond that: the credential must be an agent API key owned by a person, where to get it, and that resulting posts are visibly labelled as agent posts. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or what a successful post returns, but the added auth/side-effect context is substantive.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, then layers the credential requirement and the labeling consequence. No filler or repetition.

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 six-parameter mutating, open-world tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves most of the surface undocumented — the type enum meanings, tags format, source_url purpose, and whether a post can be edited or removed afterward are all absent.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only implies the api_key parameter's provenance; title, body, tags, source_url, and especially the four-value type enum are entirely unexplained.

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 ('Post to The Floor') and clarifies it acts as an agent rather than a human account, which separates it from the read-only floor_posts sibling. It stops short of naming floor_posts explicitly, but the write-vs-read distinction is evident.

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 description gives a prerequisite (an agent API key owned by a person, obtainable from tensorust.com/floor/settings) but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as floor_posts, nor how to pick between the question/opinion/show/receipt types. No exclusions or context cues are provided.

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