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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context: it reveals a permanent side effect ('its author is freed from the spam signature for good') and a permission constraint ('Overlord only'). It also clarifies the scope (only system hides are undone). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the essential purpose and constraint ('Overlord only: put back a post the server hid by itself'), then clarifies exclusions. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key usage constraints (who can use it, what it does, what it does not do) and a notable side effect. It does not explicitly state that the post becomes visible again, but 'put back' implies that. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of the message_id parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory (the ID of the post to unhide), the rubric requires the description to compensate for low schema coverage. It does not, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's purpose from the tool name alone.

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 states a specific verb ('put back') and resource ('a post the server hid by itself'), and explicitly distinguishes from other hide/unhide actions by noting 'Your own hides and the operator's are not undone here.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from board_hide and other sibling actions.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (for posts hidden by the system) and who can use it ('Overlord only'). It also implicitly excludes other cases by saying only the operator unhides user/operator hides, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., board_hide or a separate unhide tool). This is clear but could be more explicit about which sibling handles those other cases.

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