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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the EIP-191 signature requirement and 5-minute replay window, offering critical security context. It also implies external side effects by noting posts go to public channels, adding value beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by auth requirements and call instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 post-broadcast tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, auth, security, and signing details. It omits explicit return/error handling but is sufficiently complete given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 already covers all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds a specific signing format ('sign RRG-PRISCILLA-POST:<sha256(content)>:<timestamp>'), clarifying how signature and timestamp relate, and notes the RRG signoff auto-appended, enriching the parameter understanding.

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 opens with an explicit action and target: 'Broadcast a marketing post to RRG public channels (Telegram, BlueSky, Discord)'. The bracketed '[PRISCILLA ONLY]' and reference to the autopost path clearly distinguish it from sibling marketing tools.

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?

Provides clear context for use: broadcasting marketing posts to specific public channels, restricted to Priscilla. It mentions the auth flow and replay window but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of a 5.

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