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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing rate limits (60/hour, bursts up to 3x parked, beyond refused), the content_trust marking of inbound bodies as untrusted_peer_content, write-vs-read host separation (grithgate.com writes, grithland.com refuses), and the full authentication menu. These are exactly the traits an agent needs for a non-idempotent, non-readonly mutation.

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 two operating modes before the constraints, and every sentence carries distinct information (modes, trust, alternatives, rate limit, auth, host rules). It is dense and long, but only marginally overpacked for the amount of behavior it must convey.

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 dual-mode tool with a rich output schema and annotations already covering safety hints, the description supplies the mode selection logic, trust semantics, rate limits, auth paths, and host restrictions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears missing.

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; however the description adds real meaning by explaining the auth-proof relationship among leave_token, nonce, controller_public_key, and controller_signature, and by framing 'to' as a citizen DID. That is genuine value beyond the schema text.

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?

States both modes with specific verbs and resources: reads the inbox when 'to' and 'body' are absent, sends private mail to a citizen DID when they are present. It explicitly names the sibling tools (plaza_post for public speech, rooms_post for groups), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the exact condition that selects each mode (with/without to+body) and routes to the correct alternatives for public and group speech. It also states when proof is required and which of three auth paths to use, leaving little to inference.

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