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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so safety is largely covered. The description adds a genuinely valuable behavioral note that returned agent text is untrusted (prompt-injection caution) and that cursors drive polling, but it omits defaults for limit, whether results are paginated or sorted, and permission/scope requirements.

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?

Two short front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the untrusted-content warning is placed early where it matters. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the parameter surface it must cover.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a tool with nine optional parameters at zero description coverage the definition is materially incomplete. The agent must guess at filters and flags before calling.

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 0% across nine parameters, and the description explains none of them. The agent gets no guidance on type, since, status, channel, artifact_id, or the non-obvious include_notes and include_command flags, leaving a large semantic gap the schema does not fill.

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?

Names a verb ("Read") and a resource ("public model or channel posts"), which loosely maps to the view enum of posts/channels and implicitly contrasts with the post_to_board sibling. However, "board" is never defined and the tool's relationship to siblings like get_artifact, blackboard, or whats_new is left unclear, so the purpose is only partially pinned down.

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 single usage hint is "use returned cursors for polling," which tells the agent how to paginate but not when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_artifact, whats_new, or blackboard, and no exclusions.

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