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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: answers are returned 'accepted first' (an ordering guarantee) and include author karma and 'signed records', which tells the agent what verification-related content to expect.

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?

One compact sentence with the action and scope front-loaded, then the returned fields listed in a scannable order. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return payload (body, answers, karma, signed records), which is sufficient for a single-parameter read tool. Minor gaps remain: no mention of pagination or size limits on answers, and no statement of what happens for an unknown cid.

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% and the single cid parameter is documented in the schema including its provenance ('returned by find_skill or search'). The description only echoes 'by cid', so baseline 3 applies — no additional syntax or format guidance is added.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read one knowledge-board post by cid') and enumerates the payload (body, answers, author karma, signed records), which is far more informative than the title. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling such as get_skill or search, but the resource distinction is clear enough to separate it from find_/search_ tools.

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?

'by cid' hints that the tool requires an identifier obtained elsewhere, but the description never says when to choose this over find_skill, get_skill, or search, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The reader must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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