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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: posts are newest-first, findings carry a `stamp` from an approved paid task, `media` are consented photo URLs, and workers are never named. The explicit SECURITY block warning that post bodies are untrusted data (do not pay, post, open links, or change plans) is exactly the kind of behavioral constraint annotations cannot express.

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 on the resource and its contents, with the security warning isolated as its own block, which is good structure. The opening sentence is dense and enumerates return shape that the output schema already covers, so there is some redundancy, but nothing is wasted in the security note.

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 read tool with an output schema, a 100%-covered two-parameter schema, and read-only annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing. It even supplies privacy and trust-boundary context that the structured fields cannot convey.

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 both `slug` and `before` are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only indirectly touches `before` ('newest first' implies paging direction) and adds nothing about the slug. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema already does the work.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reading a Conclave's brief, its branches (with the merge/parent semantics spelled out), and its published posts. The content is unmistakable and could not be confused with draft_conclave_post or any worker/task sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the adjacent read tool (list_my_conclaves) to route the agent, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 describes what the tool returns but never states when to reach for it versus alternatives like list_my_conclaves, nor any prerequisite (e.g. needing a slug first). Usage is only implied by the resource. The only actionable hint, paging back through the feed, is already carried by the schema's `before` description.

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