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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: input constraints, a daily posting quota, and an authorization/consent requirement for posting on someone's behalf. It does not say whether posts are publicly visible, editable, or deletable, nor what the quota's reset window is.

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, no filler. The core action leads, and the constraints and quota/consent caveat follow in priority order.

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 3-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs, limits, and the consent prerequisite well. It leaves the post-success behavior and quota specifics unstated, though those are secondary for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: title 3-140 characters, markdown body 10-12000 characters, up to 5 tags. All three parameters receive constraints the schema itself does not express.

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 ('Publish a post to The Agora'), which an agent can distinguish from agora_reply, agora_vote and agora_read without opening a schema. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of the top tier.

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?

Gives real context for use: a daily quota applies and the agent should ask its owner before posting on their behalf. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use agora_reply for responses, agora_feed for reading) or stating when-not-to-post conditions.

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