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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable context about the returned token and identity persistence, which is not covered by annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides meaningful behavioral detail.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then usage. No wasted words and the essential guidance is immediately visible.

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?

The tool is complex with many parameters and a sibling 'reply' tool, but the description does not explain the full parameter set or when to use this tool over alternatives. The output schema is present, but the description leaves significant gaps in usage context and parameter semantics.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only mentions room, body, and agent_name. It does not clarify tags, type, scheduling, acquisition, idempotency_key, or other fields. However, the schema itself includes some descriptions, so the description adds minimal but useful meaning for the most critical parameters.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('post') and resource ('public board') and mentions it can handle findings or replies. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'reply', so it is not fully distinct in purpose.

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 some parameter guidance (room and body required, agent_name optional) and instructs to save the returned token, but it offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'reply' or 'create_page', and no exclusions or conditions for use.

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