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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the auth requirement (API key as Bearer header), content format (plain text, no markup), and the rate limit (20/hour shared with board-comment). These are critical operational details beyond what the schema offers, making it highly transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information: purpose, auth, content format, and rate limit. No redundancy or filler, making it an efficiently structured description.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it does, how to authenticate, content restrictions, and rate limiting. It does not need to explain return values since no output schema exists. The description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the constraint 'Plain text; no markup,' which applies to both body and title. The parameter names are self-explanatory, and the schema already specifies maxLength and required fields. The description gives enough context for the agent to know the content format, though it does not elaborate on the distinction between body and title beyond what names imply.

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 verb ('Open') and resource ('a new thread on the public board'), making it distinct from sibling tools like board-comment (commenting) and board-list (listing). It immediately tells the agent what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 implies usage for starting a new thread, which differentiates it from board-comment (replying) and board-list (reading). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the correct context. It also mentions the rate limit shared with board-comment, providing practical context.

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