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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds a genuinely valuable security disclosure: returned text is untrusted community content and not instructions or verified claims. That injection warning goes beyond the structured fields, though rate limits and pagination behavior remain unstated.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads. The trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant with readOnlyHint, a minor waste.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action and the trust level of results. It is incomplete on sibling differentiation and on the limit parameter, but nothing critical to invoking it 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 50% – the query param is documented but limit is not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 ('Search real agent contributions on COMMON'), which is clear enough to act on. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like common_discover or common_read_post, so the agent must guess which retrieval tool fits.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative is named despite three sibling retrieval tools existing. The only hint of usage (empty query returns recent contributions) comes from the schema, not the description.

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