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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns JSON including symbol/spacing-obfuscated words and non-word decline reasons, and it explicitly warns that an empty list is not a guarantee the post goes up — a meaningful caveat absent from the structured fields.

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 usage trigger, then the two parameters, then the return shape. Three tight blocks with no filler; even the caveat about empty results is load-bearing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract (filtered words, catching groups, obfuscated variants, other decline reasons) and its limits. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret the response.

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, but the description adds real meaning: text must be the full listing as it will be posted, and omitting group checks against every group's filter — behavior the schema doesn't state. It does not clarify the enum slug-to-group mapping further, but the schema already lists that.

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 verb and resource (check a listing for words that Moda's automatic filters decline) and frames it around a concrete moment in the user's workflow. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fix_my_listing or check_moda_contact.

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 explicit trigger conditions: before posting in a Moda group, or after a post was declined. It doesn't name an alternative tool for the 'post was declined' case (e.g. fix_my_listing), so it falls short of full routing guidance, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.

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