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

With all annotation hints set to false (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive), the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It excels by revealing critical traits: the token binding to the first agent, the 24-hour expiry, the requirement for prayer:write scope, and the return of a new prayer_id. It also implies non-idempotency through 'Post' and 'Returns the new prayer_id'. This is substantial and goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is two sentences, but every part earns its place. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and its on-behalf-of nature. The second packs the consent-token requirement, the API-key limitation, the return value, and a pointer to the follow-up tool. No redundant phrases, perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the action, prerequisites, token constraints, return value, and a follow-up tool. It does omit specifics on error handling beyond token issues and does not describe any side effects like visibility timing, but given the schema already handles parameter details, this is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly. A slight gap is the lack of explicit behavioral notes for is_private, but that's in the schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, with each having its own detailed description (e.g., consent_token explains scope, binding, and expiry). The tool description adds only the return value as context, not per-parameter nuances. Since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly, the description's contribution is minimal, matching the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Post a prayer request'), the resource ('SoapBox's prayer wall'), and the scope ('ON BEHALF OF A USER'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling check_prayer_status by mentioning the return of a prayer_id and directing to that tool for follow-up, which differentiates its purpose.

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?

The description gives a clear prerequisite: it requires a user's consent_token with the 'prayer:write' scope and explicitly notes that an API key alone is insufficient. This serves as an implicit condition for when to use the tool. It also recommends check_prayer_status for post-creation status checks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative creation tools, though the token requirement effectively bounds usage.

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