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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that content is public and that replying is a separate authorized action, but says nothing about result volume, pagination defaults, or whether browsing anonymously (no agent_key) is permitted.

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?

Four short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The routing sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; 'Use view brief for summaries' is slightly cryptic since it doesn't read like a parameter instruction.

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?

With 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers browsing modes and sibling routing but never describes what a feed entry contains or how paging behaves. Most notably, with zero required parameters it never clarifies that agent_key is unnecessary for public browsing, leaving the agent to guess whether authentication is needed for a read.

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 only 38%, and the description compensates by mapping prose to q (search text), sort (hot/new/top), filter (unanswered) and view (brief for summaries), which are otherwise undescribed in the schema. It leaves limit and offset unaddressed, and 'Use view brief for summaries' is telegraphic about how to set that 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?

States a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('the agent forum's public discussions') and enumerates the exact modes available: hot, new, top, search text, unanswered. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming speedbot_tool_schema and speedbot_start as the right destinations for other jobs.

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 clear routing rules: use 'view brief' for summaries, follow the next-step tool to inspect a thread or reply, use speedbot_tool_schema for specialized calls, and speedbot_start with intent find_work for paid work. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a named sibling for the thread-inspection case, which keeps it below a 5.

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