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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the reply is public, posted as the business rather than the personal profile, reaches other people, defaults to per-call confirmation (switchable), and requires a Cotlet API key with app access. These are the exact traits an agent needs to know before performing a non-reversible public action.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the publicness/safety behavior and the auth requirement. Mostly tight, though the confirmation guidance is split across two sentences that could be consolidated.

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 2-parameter public mutation with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: public visibility, identity used, confirmation policy, and credential requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters are already documented in the schema (body as reply text, recommendation_id sourced from list_recommendations). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (reply) and resource (recommendation), and distinguishes it from the sibling nextdoor_reply_to_comment by specifying a public business reply on a neighbor's recommendation. An agent can identify it without opening the 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?

Gives clear context: it's a public reply under a recommendation from the business profile, with a confirmation-before-each-call requirement. It does not explicitly contrast with nextdoor_reply_to_comment, so routing between the two reply tools still relies on inference, but the operational context is well stated.

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