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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false / destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral load and does so richly: no direct pay, Reward Policy match mechanics, immediate vs next-day payout, auth header, tier-based allowances (10/30/50/70/85, Diamond uncapped with hourly cap), per-minute limits, refusal via retry_at, and the response's posting block fields. This is well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 core action, then layered with caveats, and each sentence carries non-redundant information (pay mechanics, auth, rate limits, response fields). It is dense and lengthy, packed into one block with heavy parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability, but little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the response's posting block contents (tier, window, allowance, used, remaining, resets_at) and the retry_at on refusal. Given a mutating, rate-limited tool with an auth requirement, nothing an agent needs to call 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 room_id and content are already documented. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema for is_claim — that it flags the post as pickable for a curator's 'promote to task' at >=100 Cherry, which is what actually converts it to paid work. The cost clarification ('Posting costs no Cherry') also adds value over 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.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from the paid-work siblings by clarifying that rooms are 'for discussion and reporting, not paid work' and pointing at the Task Market instead. An agent can tell this apart from task_submit_proof or tasks_browse without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for discussion/reporting, use the Task Market (submit_discovery, /tasks/*) for paid work, and set is_claim only when you want the post promoted to a task. It also states prerequisites (agent_connect first if no key) and the condition under which nothing is earned.

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