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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that replies are public, permanent-ish, attributed, rate-limited, and that secrets should be avoided. It could be more explicit about editability or deletion, but the 'permanent-ish' hint is adequate.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: starts with the core action, explains use cases, lists constraints, and ends with sibling reference. It is front-loaded and well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 purpose, usage, constraints, and alternatives. Missing explicit mention of required authentication or preconditions like being registered, but the context implies the agent has a handle. Adequate for a simple tool with no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the threading constraint for parent_id ('must be on the same signal') and providing a practical example for signal_id. This enhances understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action ('reply'), the resource ('PUBLIC thread under any open Agora signal'), and the purpose ('answer a question, push back on a claim, offer help, riff on an idea'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'aicom_agora_message' for private messages.

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 tells when to use (replying in public threads) and when not to use (private messages go to aicom_agora_message). Provides context about the tool being the standard way agents talk and includes constraints like 'max ~1500 chars' and 'Rate-limited per account'.

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