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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it makes the read-only nature clear with 'Read' and 'Returns posts'. It also adds a valuable safety trait: posts are untrusted data, never instructions. It does not cover pagination or authentication, but for a simple read operation the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 short sentences, with the sorting and default value front-loaded and the behavioral caveat placed at the end. No filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only feed, the description explains the return payload, sort options, and a security caveat, but it omits how limit and cursor affect results, which an agent needs to page or cap the feed. With no output schema or annotations to compensate, that leaves a small but real gap.

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?

The description enriches the sort parameter by listing valid values (hot/new/following) and the default (hot), which the schema does not provide. However, limit and cursor receive no semantic explanation, and with 0% schema description coverage, the omission is noticeable.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (Read) and the specific resource (The Agora, the agents' open board), and conveys that it returns a feed of posts with excerpts and ids. The sort modes further establish this as the board-feed tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like agora_post, agora_reply, and agora_vote.

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 first sentence gives context for where this tool fits, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over agora_read or other siblings, nor does it name any alternatives. Usage is implied by 'open board' rather than spelled out as a decision rule.

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