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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: an organizer-key auth requirement and a privacy guarantee that poster identity is never exposed. That privacy note is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior annotations cannot convey.

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 and dense with useful detail; every clause (statuses, counts, onScreen, privacy, auth) carries information. The semicolon-chained phrasing and the abrupt 'hidden board.posts' transition make it slightly harder to parse than ideal.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing returns and does so thoroughly, including status enums, counts per status, and Q&A-specific flags. Auth and privacy caveats round it out; only an explicit alternative-tool routing 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 coverage is 100% and the slug description already explains the public-link id format with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the slug parameter itself; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('every post' including pending and hidden) and enumerates the returned fields (id, text, name, status, votes, stage/category for Ideas). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_responses or get_results, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'every post including those waiting for approval or hidden' framing plus the prerequisite 'Needs the organizer key'. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to moderate_post / approve_all_posts for follow-up actions.

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