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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: character limits (5–300), a phone-number prohibition, and rate limits (10 per day, 1 per minute). What is missing is any mention of what a successful post returns or how failures surface.

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?

Three telegraphic clauses with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the formatting and rate constraints. Every clause carries a rule the agent must obey.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, required content format, parent_id usage, and rate limits well. It is only slightly incomplete in not describing authentication via api_key or the response on success.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It does add real meaning for two of three parameters: body constraints (5–300 chars, no phone numbers) and parent_id semantics (the opposing comment's number for rebuttals). api_key is never explained, leaving a gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('오늘 토론에 의견(댓글)을 남긴다' – post an opinion/comment on today's debate), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like join_debate or search_posts. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It supplies concrete context for the two posting modes: a first comment must open with '[chosen side] reason', while a rebuttal must set parent_id to the opposing comment's number. It does not cover alternatives or exclusions (e.g., checking today_debate first), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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