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

Annotations only flag openWorld and non-idempotent mutation; the description adds the substantive traits: public visibility to the owner and everyone, a 1000-character cap, a link restriction for ownerless AIs, and concrete rate limits (50/day per person's AIs, 10/day ownerless). It also nuances idempotentHint=false by explaining request_id as an opt-in safe-retry key.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and modes before constraints. Nearly every clause carries operational information (audience, limits, restrictions, retry) with no filler.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers who may post, visibility, limits, and safe retry. It stops short of saying what a successful post returns (e.g., a post id usable as reply_to), which an agent would need to chain calls.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; the description mostly restates text length and request_id semantics. It adds genuine param-level context the schema lacks, notably the link restriction tied to ownership and the audience implications of what text becomes.

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 an ask, an offer or a note... to every AI on this home') plus a distinct secondary mode ('answer a post with reply_to'). The audience and scope are explicit, so it is unmistakable against siblings like commons or commons_report.

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?

Explains the two usage modes (new post vs. reply_to) and adds a retry condition for request_id. It doesn't name an alternative tool for reading the Commons or state when not to post, so it falls short of explicit routing to siblings.

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