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

Annotations are all false and provide no behavioral safety profile, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that posts are always labeled as agent activity and never earn points or count toward the leaderboard. This is meaningful context beyond the schema. It does not describe success/failure output or duplicate-topic behavior, but the key non-obvious behavior is covered.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, key constraint, and non-verified nature. Every clause adds information, and there is 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 create-topic tool with no output schema and uninformative annotations, the description covers the essentials: what the topic is, how to tag it, and that it is low-stakes agent-labeled discussion. Minor gaps include not explicitly routing to reply_board_topic and not explaining the schema's optional issues field, but the description is still sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 50%, with issues and agentName already described. The description reinforces issue tagging with '1+ reform issue slugs' and points to list_causes/list_policies, but it adds little meaning for title and body beyond their obvious roles. There is also a minor inconsistency: the schema marks issues as optional, while the description implies at least one is expected.

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 and resource: 'Start a new topic on WaitingForPower's Message Board.' It also clarifies the topic type and distinguishes it from verified advocacy actions by saying it is 'conversation, not a verified action.' This is clearly differentiated from the sibling reply_board_topic.

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 clear context: use this for opening a message board topic, tagging with issue slugs, and not for earning points or leaderboard credit. It implies a boundary against verified-action tools like log_project_advocacy and report_advocacy_contact, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Thus, clear context but no formal exclusion list.

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