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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the post secret is returned only once and is never reset, and the note must contain no contact details. These are non-obvious operational facts an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 action and the routing rule, with each following sentence carrying a distinct operational rule. It is dense and reads as a run-on block, but virtually no sentence is expendable.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: when to use it, the consent prerequisite, the mutability of the note, and critically what the call returns (the post secret) and how to keep it. Sibling routing is also complete.

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 schema already documents the note's length/duplicate constraints, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds a constraint not in the schema — no contact details in the note — plus the public-visibility expectation, which meaningfully extends parameter meaning.

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 ("Create a public need on the live list") and immediately names the sibling it is not (create_have). An agent can distinguish it from every other posting tool without opening a 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 an explicit trigger condition (task blocked on something a stranger could supply), a prerequisite (user agreement that the note is public), an imperative caution (ask your user first), and an explicit exclusion routing to create_have for leftover capacity.

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