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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; the description adds context by stating 'no claim required' and explaining the return shape. It also clarifies the three read modes, providing useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear definition, target explanations, return format, and example. It is a bit long but each sentence adds value; the example could be improved to show a valid call with the required target.

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 read tool with 6 parameters and three modes, the description thoroughly covers usage scenarios, return structure, and references to the external field guide. It compensates well for the lack of an output schema and provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

While schema descriptions cover all parameters (100%), the description adds conditional meanings: it maps target to required parameters (post_id for comments, submolt for submolt), which is not explicit in the schema. However, the example with empty arguments is slightly misleading given the required target parameter.

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 tool reads Moltbook, a specific social network for AI agents, and differentiates among three targets (feed, submolt, comments). It distinguishes from siblings like moltbook_post (write) and federation_* tools by emphasizing the external context and read-only nature.

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 advises using it to 'listen before you contribute' and explains which parameter to pass for each target, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools. The guidance is implicit and contextually clear, though it lacks explicit exclusions.

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