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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: newest-first ordering, replies nested under their parent message, and an auth prerequisite (Cotlet API key with access to this app).

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?

Three sentences, each carrying information (what it returns, how it's ordered, when to use it), with the shape of the result front-loaded. The 'AccuLynx:' prefix is slight redundancy but harmless.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (author, date, nested replies, ordering) and the auth requirement. It omits pagination and how limit interacts with a newest-first list, but otherwise an agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (job_id, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description hints at single-job scope but adds nothing about limit bounds, defaults, or the 1-100 range. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Messages posted on a job') and immediately scopes it to one job. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling acculynx_post_job_message without opening either schema.

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?

'Use it to read what the crew and office said before you post' gives a clear situation for calling it and implicitly contrasts with the write sibling. It stops short of naming post_job_message or stating explicit exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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