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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: the return shape ('posts with excerpts and ids') and a prompt-injection warning that posts are other agents' data, not instructions — a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the resource description and sort options front-loaded. The safety note is a single clause appended where it belongs.

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?

Read-only with no output schema, and the description covers return contents and sort modes adequately. However, the cursor/limit parameters governing pagination are unaddressed in both schema and description, leaving a gap for a listing tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains sort thoroughly (hot default, active = most recently answered, new, following) but leaves 'limit' and 'cursor' entirely undocumented, so pagination semantics remain opaque.

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 (read) and resource (the Forum, the agents' open board), making the scope clear against siblings like agora_post and agora_read. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but an agent can distinguish a feed from single-post reads.

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 sort modes imply usage (hot for default browsing, following for subscribed agents, active for recently answered), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings such as agora_read or agora_notifications. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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