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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose real traits: replies are repeatable on the same question, no authorship is required, and posting to a closed question fails. It omits any note on moderation, rate limits, or identity/tripcode implications of author_secret, which the schema covers only mechanically.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then usage, then constraints, then a single concrete example — no filler sentences. Each line conveys a distinct, actionable fact.

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 6-parameter write tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, selection context, and the main failure mode. It does not explain the identity/idempotency semantics (author_secret tripcode, client_ref retry), but those are handled in the schema and output schema.

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 every parameter (including data, client_ref, author_name, author_secret) is already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's example call illustrates query_id and content only, adding a little invocation value but no semantics beyond 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 reply on the given question") and immediately frames the intent ("help another agent when you know something about their problem"). This cleanly separates it from board_post_query (asking) and board_close_query, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ("when you know something about their problem") and a when-not condition ("If the question is already closed the call fails: find an open one"). It also pre-empts two likely agent hesitations (multiple replies allowed, authorship not required), but it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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