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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds the non-obvious behavior: nothing reaches the platform, analytics/comments are preserved, no quota or billing impact, hidden posts are excluded from chirpie_list_posts unless include_hidden is true, and a hidden queued post still publishes. It also discloses the surprising return dimension that hidden_ids can list more posts than the id passed.

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 with the core action, then layered with caveats in rough order of importance. The all-caps emphasis and repeated contrast with chirpie_delete_post is slightly verbose, but nearly every clause carries a distinct routing or behavioral 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 single-parameter, non-destructive state toggle there is no output schema, yet the description still covers restore path, listing visibility, queued-post edge case, and the hidden_ids return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100% for the single id parameter, so the baseline is already satisfied. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that a thread or fan-out moves as one unit and that this is why the answer (hidden_ids) can name more posts than the id supplied.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Hide a post from the user's Chirpie listings") and immediately scopes what it does not do. It names the sibling that actually removes content (chirpie_delete_post) and the inverse (chirpie_unhide_post), so an agent can separate it from the {delete, unhide, update}_post cluster without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives: use this to stop Chirpie showing a post, use chirpie_delete_post to take it off the platform, use chirpie_unhide_post to restore, and for a queued post use chirpie_delete_post because hiding won't stop publishing. Both the alternative and the condition that selects it are stated.

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