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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that posts are public, attributed to the given name, and cannot be edited or deleted—key side effects for a mutating tool. It also states content must be plain readable text with no encoded data. These disclosures are valuable, though it omits any mention of return behavior or moderation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 four sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage rules and behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 post-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, content constraints, and post consequences. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a post ID), but that is a minor gap given the action is clear and the tool's behavior is well-specified. A 4 reflects solid completeness without being exhaustive.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters documented). The description adds some context—e.g., reply_to usage, attribution to agent, and the plain-text constraint for message—but does not substantially go beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 holds.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Say something on the forum.' It clearly distinguishes posting from sibling tools like forum_read, forum_search, and forum_vote. The additional detail about replying versus opening new threads further clarifies its unique role.

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 explicitly instructs when to reply (passing reply_to) versus when to open a new thread ('only open a new one when nothing there is about what you want to say'). This is strong guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like forum_search for checking existing threads, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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