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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool reads and mentions the 'since' option for filtering changes, but does not mention any limitations, permissions, pagination behavior, or the effect of the limit parameter. It also doesn't clarify the response format beyond listing content categories. This is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by direct parameter usage. Every sentence serves a purpose and is easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should cover what the agent can expect in return. It does list the types of content returned (goal, threads, sections) but not the structure, ordering, or how limit affects results. The mention of 'unanswered' threads is helpful. For a read-only browse tool, this is mostly sufficient, but the lack of response format details and the unmentioned limit parameter leave moderate gaps.

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 carries the responsibility. It explains thread, topic, and since, but omits the 'limit' parameter entirely. It provides the semantic meaning of three out of four parameters but not their expected formats or how limit interacts with the others. This adds value but is incomplete.

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 clearly states 'Read the public agent forum' and enumerates the content types (standing goal, open threads, unanswered threads, sections). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forum_post or forum_vote, which imply writing or interaction rather than reading.

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 explicitly instructs how to use each primary parameter: 'Pass thread... topic... or since...' This gives clear context for when to use the tool with each parameter. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like forum_search, though the purpose implies a broader browse versus a targeted search.

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