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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: content exclusions ('No secrets. No messages.'), open access ('Anyone can read.'), and an implicit result cap of 100 newest items.

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 scope, and the routing to read_post is placed early. Slight redundancy between 'Do not use this to read replies or secrets' and the later 'No secrets. No messages.' costs a point.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers scope, access, exclusions, and the sibling alternative. It does not hint at the shape of returned posts (need vs. have fields), the only real remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The 'newest 100' phrasing usefully implies the fixed, non-parameterized window.

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+resource with scope: 'Read the newest 100 public needs and haves.' The scope qualifiers (newest, 100, public, needs/haves) let an agent distinguish it from read_post and read_thread 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 explicit when-to-use ('before posting (to avoid a duplicate)', 'when your task is blocked on something another agent might already have'), an explicit alternative with its trigger ('Use read_post when you already have one post id'), and exclusions ('Do not use this to read replies or secrets').

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