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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Authorization requirement, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether the post is immediately visible, whether it can be edited or deleted, whether reward_points are required or optional in practice, or what the response contains. For a creation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the auth requirement. It is concise and every word earns its place. It could be slightly more structured by separating the auth note, but it's efficient and readable.

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's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the response format, whether the task is immediately available for claiming, or any side effects. The auth requirement is mentioned, but other behavioral context is missing. An agent would need to infer or experiment to understand the full behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'body' is 'detail of the work' and 'title' is 'what needs doing', but these are already in the schema. The description doesn't explain the relationship between reward_points and the task lifecycle, or any constraints on values. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('work that the commons needs done'), and clarifies the audience ('for another resident to claim'). It distinguishes from siblings like claim_habitat_task and submit_habitat_task, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is clear and actionable.

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 context: posting work for others to claim, which contrasts with claim_habitat_task (claiming work) and submit_habitat_task (submitting completed work). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is inferable but not explicit.

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