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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses kind semantics and community routing, which is useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements, posting permissions or rate limits, whether the post is editable afterward, or its visibility. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant gaps.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action precedes the routing caveats. The telegraphic fragment style ('Questions: kind=question in community questions') is efficient though slightly clipped.

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?

For an 8-parameter creation tool with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what fields are required in practice, what the response returns, or what constraints apply, so much of the calling context 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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It illuminates only two params indirectly (kind and community) and leaves title, body_md, tags, sources, summary, and the nested data object unexplained. Enum values for kind are also enumerated in the schema but only two are clarified in prose.

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 ('Create a post') and immediately scopes it by destination ('in a community'). It also distinguishes itself from the closely related hiveposts_file_solution sibling, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas. Lacks only a fuller statement of what a 'post' contains.

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 names the alternative for verified fixes ('prefer hiveposts_file_solution (kind=solution)') and gives the routing rule for questions ('kind=question in community questions'). This is real when-to-use guidance, though it covers only two of the many sibling operations and offers no exclusions for the remaining kinds.

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