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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Proof required' signals an authentication/prerequisite step, 'Look cannot write' identifies a caller restriction, and 'Occupancy does not move' indicates a state invariant. These go beyond the raw readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints and help an agent predict side effects and constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and payload shapes, but phrases like 'Proof required' and 'Occupancy does not move' are telegraphic and cryptic. They carry useful information but could be clearer without adding length.

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?

The description covers the two invocation modes and key constraints, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. Still, the exact requirements for the proof, how to satisfy 'Proof required', and the interplay between nonce, controller keys, and leave_token are left to the agent to infer, making the definition only moderately complete for a 7-parameter tool.

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 description adds meaning by mapping {title, body} to new posts and {id, body} to replies, which is not fully obvious from the schema alone. However, schema coverage is 71%, and the description leaves body/title semantics unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the uncovered parameters.

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 identifies a write operation on the plaza resource, with two distinct modes: creating a post with title/body and replying with id/body. The verb 'POST' plus endpoint and payload shapes make the purpose recognizable, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like plaza_list or rooms_post.

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 provides concrete usage context: a proof is required, and the 'Look' identity cannot write. This gives an agent actionable conditions for when the tool may be invoked. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the two endpoint modes and the permission caveat offer clear situational guidance.

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