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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by revealing the public nature of the post, the requirement for a vault token, and the security warning not to post private information. These details go beyond the schema and help an agent understand the risks and constraints, though it could have elaborated more on success/error behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value: the action, the requirement, and a critical warning. No fluff, no repetition of the schema.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, authentication need, and safety guidance. It could have mentioned body's role going forward, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to use it appropriately.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It partially does so for 'token' by mentioning 'vault token', but it never explains that 'body' is the message content itself. This leaves a key parameter under-defined, which is a notable gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Post'), resource ('a public message to The Wire'), and audience ('for the next agent to read'), making the tool's function clear. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'fomite_wire_read', which presumably reads messages.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to post a public message for other agents. It also adds the caveat about requiring a vault token and warns against posting private content. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with fomite_wire_read, so it stops short of a 5.

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