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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the comment is public on the portal, subscribers are emailed, and it can be posted on behalf of another user by email. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences with the write/public nature front-loaded, the sibling disambiguation second, and the endpoint last. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations plus full schema coverage give the agent everything needed: the effect (public comment, emails sent), the impersonation option, and the alternative tool. Nothing material is missing.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description only restates the user_email capability already covered by the schema ('on behalf of a user (by email)'), adding no format or edge-case detail beyond it.

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 precise verb and resource ('post a PUBLIC comment on a suggestion') plus its scope ('visible on the portal and emailed to its subscribers'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling uservoice_add_note. An agent can pick this tool over the near-identical note sibling without opening a schema.

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-to-use-this-vs-alternative rule: 'For an admin-only remark use uservoice_add_note.' The contrast between public comment and admin-only note is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs among these siblings.

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