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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds what actually makes it destructive (email_all emails every active employee and cannot be undone) and the permission requirement. It also discloses that the post is visible to every employee, which matters for a mutation an agent may invoke casually.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then format, then the dangerous parameter with its warning. Dense but every clause carries information; only the emphasis styling on 'ALSO EMAILS' is stylistic overhead.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers audience, formatting, permission, and irreversibility. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g. an announcement or event id), which would help chaining or follow-up actions.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond it, notably the markdown mention syntax [Full Name](/people/<profile_id>) and the fact that is_appreciation acts on mentioned profiles. It still doesn't say what a valid profile_id looks like or where to obtain one.

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 an announcement) plus the exact scope and audience (company home feed, every employee). No sibling tool covers announcements, and the description makes the audience blast explicit, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not rule for the risky path: email_all 'set it only when the user explicitly asks'. It doesn't discuss alternatives for narrower communications (comments, events), but there are no competing announcement siblings, so the missing piece is minor.

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