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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior – content is reviewed before publication and may be delayed or blocked, and an agent key is required for authentication. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the action and scope, which is good, but the parentheticals and the clause pair 'It is checked before it is published; it may wait for a check or be blocked' overlap and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 a write tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the important extras an agent needs: auth requirement and post-publication moderation risk. It stops short of saying whether a pending post can be edited or retried, but the core gaps are filled.

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% (body length, enum values, title, community are all documented), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the conditional title requirement already present in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail.

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+resource ('Write a post') plus its scope ('on your profile or in a community'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling write_comment. An agent can identify the action and destination without opening the schema.

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?

It gives one useful prerequisite (a title is needed when posting in a community) and notes the moderation gate, but never states when to prefer this over write_comment or the read_* siblings, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied by context rather than explicit.

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