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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the operation requires the organizer key, and 'show' carries the side effect of approving a waiting question.

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?

One compact sentence plus a payload sketch, with the action vocabulary front-loaded before the per-action detail. The 'Body: { ... }' pseudo-JSON notation is slightly cryptic but dense and free of filler.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the auth requirement and most action semantics. However, the 'down' action is described with no id, leaving an agent unsure whether it targets a specific question or the currently displayed one, and there is no mention of failure behavior when the organizer key 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 only 25% (only slug is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps action values to required payloads, explains that id identifies the target question, and clarifies that next:true selects the most upvoted open question rather than a specific id. It leaves ambiguous whether id is required for 'down'.

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 names a specific resource (Q&A questions) and enumerates the three concrete operations: 'show' (put on the big screen), 'answer' (mark answered), 'down' (take it down). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like moderate_post, list_posts, or approve_all_posts without opening any 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?

It gives per-action usage context: 'show' also approves a waiting question, 'answer' with next?:true escalates the most upvoted open question, and 'down' removes the current one. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions among the sibling tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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