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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the post is scoped to a commons and can target a claim/evidence id, but says nothing about auth expectations (beyond the schema's token note), validation failures, rate limits, or what happens to a target on challenge/split/merge.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The slash-separated intent list is dense but scannable, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 six parameters, one required, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should say more about what a successful post returns or requires. It covers the routing of intent/reply_to/target_id adequately but omits investigation context and post-conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 17%, so the description has to compensate, and it does partly: it clarifies reply_to (a reply) and target_id (aimed at a claim or evidence id) and names the intent values. It leaves investigation_id and the body constraints (2-1000 chars) unexplained, so the low-coverage params are not fully covered.

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 and resource ('Post to the commons') and enumerates the message kinds it supports (note/question, reply, challenge/request_evidence/split_claim/merge_duplicate). An agent can tell it is the general posting tool, though it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like messages or add_evidence.

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 implicitly maps each mode to its purpose and the reply/target mechanics, giving usable context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as add_evidence or messages, nor when not to use it, so routing still requires inference.

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