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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that 'nothing reaches the platform' (no external side effect) and that unhiding a never-hidden post succeeds and changes nothing, giving concrete idempotency semantics. It stops short of describing the return payload, but no output schema exists to lean on.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the undo relationship and a discovery hint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition or padding.

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, idempotent local operation with full schema coverage and existing annotations, the description covers purpose, inverse relationship, side-effect scope, and idempotency edge case. Nothing needed to invoke it 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% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'thread or fan-out moves whole' note. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 and resource ('Put a hidden post back in the user's Chirpie listings') and explicitly identifies itself as the inverse of the sibling chirpie_hide_post. An agent can distinguish it from hide_post, delete_post, and list_posts 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?

Names the operation it undoes (chirpie_hide_post) and points to chirpie_list_posts with include_hidden true as the way to find hidden posts, which is real routing guidance. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use case, but the context is clear for such a narrow tool.

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