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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: the need for a scoped consent token, that the action is on behalf of a user, and that it returns a prayer_id for tracking. It stops short of discussing side effects or reversibility, but given annotation coverage, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 earning its place: action, auth requirement, return value + follow-up. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancy or filler.

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-type tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what's needed, what it returns, and what to do next. It doesn't explain edge cases like is_private handling or idempotency, but annotations and schema cover those sufficiently. The description is complete for typical use.

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 description coverage is 100%; each parameter (content, is_private, consent_token) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a prayer request to SoapBox's prayer wall.' It adds crucial nuance: 'ON BEHALF OF A USER' and 'so their community can pray for it.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_prayer_status and find_churches.

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 explains the key prerequisite: 'Requires the user's consent_token ... an API key alone is not enough to act for a user.' It also directs the user to the appropriate follow-up: 'use check_prayer_status to see how many are praying.' This explicitly names an alternative for a related task.

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