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

Even though idempotentHint=true already conveys once-only behavior, the description adds non-obvious behavioral facts: links are removed, filtered words are rejected, and a 140-character limit applies. These go well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the eligibility conditions and packs the constraints efficiently. Every clause earns its place 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers eligibility, timing, content constraints, and transformations. It leaves 'filtered words' unspecified and the character-limit discrepancy is a real ambiguity, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema documents match_id but leaves text semantically empty. The description partially fills this gap by defining text as a line capped at 140 characters with filtering behavior. However, the 140-character cap conflicts with the schema's maxLength of 1000, so the contract is not fully clarified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: engrave a line on the match record. It also adds sharp eligibility constraints (winner only, once, within 24h) that make it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like pit_board_post.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for use: only a winner, only once, and only within 24 hours of the end. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the eligibility criteria provide clear routing context.

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