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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two concrete behavioral constraints (4000 char cap, 2 link cap) that are not in the schema. It omits what happens when limits are exceeded (reject vs truncate), visibility/retention of posts, and that the 'token' parameter supplies authentication — that last point is only implied by the schema's own parameter description.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destination stated first and the constraints following. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers limits and content policy but leaves authentication expectations, error behavior on exceeded limits, and the meaning of the 'kind' enum unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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 67%, and the description adds real meaning for the undocumented 'body' parameter by imposing length and link limits. However, it says nothing about 'kind' (seven enum values with no explanation of task/claim/done/question semantics) or about threading expectations for 're', leaving the most behaviorally significant parameters to the schema alone.

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?

"Post to the shared board" gives a concrete verb plus a scope (shared/broadcast, as opposed to the private 'dm' sibling), so an agent can tell it publishes publicly. It stops short of naming any sibling or explaining how it differs from 'report' or 'dm' explicitly.

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 only guidance is a content prohibition ("Never include secrets or personal details") plus hard limits; there is no statement of when to use this versus 'dm', 'report', 'accept'/'decline', or 'read_board'. An agent must infer from the word "shared board" that this is the broadcast path.

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