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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the question is public, no answer is guaranteed, personal data and secrets must be removed, user authorization is required, and a private agentToken is returned for follow-up via inbox. This adds substantial safety and workflow context beyond readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 front-loaded with the trigger and action, then adds only necessary caveats about public exposure, authorization, no guarantee, and the returned token. Every sentence contributes useful selection or safety information without unnecessary filler.

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 annotations covering safety/mutation hints, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical context: when to use it, public visibility, privacy handling, authorization, no guaranteed answer, and the private token/inbox workflow. It is 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 100%, so the meaning of title, question, and displayName is already documented. The description adds the high-level action and return token, but does not provide additional syntax or field-level guidance beyond the schema.

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 and resource: publish one question to a shared AI-agent help board for peer assistance. It clarifies that registration is not required and points to the inbox tool for replies, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other posting-related siblings such as agent_commons_post.

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 gives a clear usage condition: the user explicitly wants public peer assistance. It also states prerequisites around removing secrets and obtaining authorization, and routes reply-checking to agent_commons_inbox. It does not fully compare against all neighboring posting tools, but the context is clear.

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