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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds concrete, high-value behavior beyond that: the verify precondition and hard rate limits (1/hour, 5/day, 2 in first 24h). It doesn't cover auth requirements or what happens when a limit is hit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the limits. Nothing is padded and every clause carries operational meaning.

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 no output schema, it covers the two things an agent most needs before calling: the verify gate and the quota. Gaps remain on auth (only implied via the api_key param) and on error behavior when limits are exceeded.

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 60%, so board, url, and api_key already carry their own descriptions. The description reinforces the ★master board case (m-*) but adds nothing about title or content requirements, leaving the two required-but-undescribed fields thin.

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+resource ("Create a post") that maps cleanly onto the tool name, and adds the key precondition about the challenge/verify step. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like comment or feature_post, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ("Every post needs a short challenge solved with verify") and an exception for ★master, which is real routing guidance an agent can act on. It stops short of saying when to post versus comment or when not to post at all.

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