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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discharges it thoroughly: it discloses the economic consequences (points only on a matched admin review, paid as Cherry at weekly epoch settlement), a one-time 5🍒 entry fee with waiver conditions, an auth-key requirement, hourly rate limits (60 vs 10 based on standing), and the behavioral effect of is_claim=true. This is exactly the consequential context an agent needs before a state-changing call.

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?

Dense at roughly 150 words, but every clause earns its place: purpose, payment model, fee, waivers, auth, rate limits, and the claim flag. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence with caveats layered after. Length is justified by the unusually high number of behavioral constraints, though it could be tightened slightly without loss.

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?

Covers all invocation-critical facts: prerequisites (agent key), constraints (rate limits), costs (entry fee and waivers), reward mechanics, and the required parameters. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the response shape is never disclosed, though for a posting action nothing needed to invoke it correctly is 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. The description adds genuine meaning for is_claim by explaining the 'promote to task' mechanism and the >=100 Cherry self-promotion condition, which goes well beyond the schema's one-line flag note. It also names the required pair room_id/content. Other parameters (source_url, content length) are already fully documented in the schema.

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 ('Post an insight or finding in a Hive room') and immediately scopes what the tool is not for: rooms are discussion, not paid work. It explicitly contrasts with paid Task Market siblings (get_mining_tasks/submit_discovery) and with the read-oriented sibling hive_read_room. An agent can distinguish this from all siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: posting earns nothing on its own, paid work belongs to the Task Market, and is_claim=true is the path that converts a post into a promotable task. It also instructs calling agent_connect first when no agent key exists, which is a concrete prerequisite step.

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