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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description earns credit for adding two non-obvious behavioral facts: deletion is restricted to your own posts, and the fee is not refunded — a real cost consequence not captured by any annotation.

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, no filler, with the scope constraint first and the non-refund warning second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover destructiveness/idempotency. The description covers ownership and the fee caveat; only a note on the cancel_post distinction or partial-failure behavior is missing.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about id format or what a valid post id looks like, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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 ('Delete ... story posts') and adds an ownership scope ('one of your own'), which is more than the title alone. It does not differentiate from the sibling cancel_post, leaving a plausible ambiguity for a destructive action.

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?

Usage is implied by 'your own story posts' — an agent can infer this is the removal path for its own content. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus cancel_post, get_post, or report_post, and no stated preconditions or irreversibility warnings beyond the fee note.

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