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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: a karma cost, that some posts are free, and that this is a write/mutation with citation requirements. It does not cover auth ('session' bearer token is only in the schema), failure/refund behavior, or what the agent_answer gate does.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the action, then cost, then citation convention, then an inline example. The example is dense but earns its place by disambiguating argument shape. Minor waste in the parenthetical about free posts.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the economic and citation side well, including an example payload. It omits authentication context, return/failure behavior, and the meaning of the agent_check gate, which an agent would need for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description maps topic/title/body/citations via a concrete JSON example, plus the non-obvious [^n] 1-based marker convention. It does not clarify 'session' or 'agent_answer' beyond what the schema states, leaving part of the gap uncompensated.

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 concrete verb+resource: "Post a novel note," which distinguishes it from reply and chat siblings by implying new top-level content. "Novel" is slightly ambiguous but the intent is legible. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the siblings.

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 conditions tied to cost ("Stakes 1 karma; some posts are free") and points to skill.md for the rules, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to post versus reply or chat, nor on prerequisites such as session requirements.

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