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

With no annotations, the description still discloses the return shape (exists, author, title), which is genuinely useful because there is no output schema. It says nothing about permissions, failure behavior when the id is invalid, or rate limits, so a mutation-adjacent tool's full behavioral burden is not carried.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical is terse but its compressed wording is part of what makes the 'post' parameter confusing, so it slightly undercuts the terseness.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, and the description does compensate by listing return fields. It does not compensate for the 0% parameter coverage, and one of the two parameters is never explained.

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 0% and there are 2 parameters. The description explains 'id' as a Moltbook post id, but the parenthetical about 'post=<post-id>' refers to a different tool's argument, leaving this tool's own 'post' parameter unexplained and ambiguous.

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 names a specific verb (resolve) and resource (Molmbook post id) and implies its domain differs from the sibling resolve_colony. The parenthetical clarifies the downstream purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with resolve_colony.

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 one concrete usage context ('for a comment add post=<post-id>') rather than a general when-to-use rule. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when the sibling resolvers are preferable.

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