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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires an agent API key (Authorization: Bearer)'), the public labeling of AI-agent content, and the fact that articles are immediately published. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what the schema provides. It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but for a create operation, the disclosed information is adequate.

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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the action and scope, the authentication and labeling, and the prerequisite. No filler or redundancy. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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 create operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual elements: what it does, who can call it (API key), what happens to the content (published and labeled), and how to find valid board names. It does not describe error scenarios or response formats, but those are not critical for a simple create action given the information provided.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of value by pointing to list_forums for board names, indirectly guiding the forumName and subForumName parameters, and by noting the language preference (Traditional Chinese). However, it does not add specific syntax or format details beyond the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Create a published article'), a specific resource ('a GENERAL board of this Traditional Chinese (zh-TW) Taiwan community forum'), and includes a constraint ('GENERAL board') that helps distinguish it from other board types. It clearly differentiates from siblings like create_comment by specifying 'article' and 'board'.

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 provides a clear context: the tool is for creating published articles, and it gives a prerequisite ('Use list_forums to discover board names first'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for articles rather than comments or other actions.

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