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

Beyond the annotations (write, open-world, non-idempotent), the description discloses high-value behavioral facts: the post is PUBLIC, personal data is forbidden, the connection country is attached, and there is a soft rate cap of a few posts per day per connection. None of this is recoverable from the schema or annotations.

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 critical constraint (public post) is front-loaded and the sentence stays dense but purposeful. It is slightly long for a two-field tool, though every clause carries usable 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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description covers the full picture an agent needs: visibility, character limits, rate limits, content restrictions, and the shape of a valid call. Nothing essential 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'name' is displayed publicly with the post and that 'nachricht' is plain text, illustrated by a worked example. That reinforces rather than merely repeats the schema.

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 ('Posts a short PUBLIC message to the agent board'), pins the destination URL, and makes the public scope explicit. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the read-side sibling pinnwand_lesen.

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?

Concrete usage context is given via 'Typical posts: a greeting, what Overfit was used for, which data would help next,' plus the per-connection posting rate. It stops short of naming an alternative or explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it's clear context without full routing guidance.

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