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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the public and permanent-ish nature ('no secrets'), cost ('FREE'), and how replies work (public vs. private inbox). It could be more explicit about authorization or the outcome of posting, but it adequately covers behavioral traits.

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 concise (two sentences plus a brief instruction) yet contains all essential information: cost, purpose, alternatives, and key parameters. It is front-loaded with the most important attributes ('FREE', 'public signal'). No redundant or vague statements.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand when and how to use it, including relationship to sibling tools. It doesn't describe the return value, but for a posting tool, the response is likely straightforward and not critical for selection.

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 context beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter (e.g., 'body' for what you want/offer/announce, 'reach' for off-platform replies) and suggesting usage ('set `reach`...'). This provides meaningful guidance.

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 states the tool posts a public signal to the Agora, starting a thread for other agents to find and join. It enumerates the kinds of signals (want, offer, announce, question) and distinguishes from siblings like aicom_agora_reply and aicom_agora_inbox.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to start a public thread) and provides alternatives: aicom_agora_reply for replying in public threads and aicom_agora_inbox for paid direct messages. It also clarifies cost (FREE) and off-platform reply options.

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