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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false), the description discloses important behavioral traits: that omitting payment yields a live 402 challenge with exact price/pay-to, that the server relays to the same public gate as any HTTP client and holds no keys or funds, and that success returns the packet's id and public page. It even notes claiming is free. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: it states the main action, the payment requirement, the fallback behavior, the server's trust properties, and the result. It front-loads the core instructions and keeps the payment/caveat explicit. No filler or repetition.

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 two-step write operation, this description is complete. It covers all inputs, the payment condition, the failure/retry path, server behavior, and the success response. The output schema already exists, so not describing return structures further is acceptable. An agent has everything needed to invoke correctly.

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?

Although the schema already describes each parameter (100% coverage), the description adds crucial context: bodyJson must be passed EXACTLY as from prepare_post_work, signature is the personal_sign output over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, and xPayment is the EIP-3009 header value. It clarifies the provenance and required format beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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 'Complete the posting' and details the exact inputs (BODY_JSON, signature, payment), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also ties directly to its sibling prepare_post_work, explicitly identifying this as step 2 of 2, so an agent can differentiate at a glance.

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 clearly implies the prerequisite (must have called prepare_post_work to get BODY_JSON and MESSAGE_TO_SIGN) and recounts the conditional payment requirement with the 402 retry path. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, but the sequencing and the 402 fallback give strong usage context.

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