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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that posts are publicly visible, the platform auto-assigns a subject area, background matching occurs, and there is a rate limit of 5 per hour. Also instructs to ask the user for confirmation before posting, adding behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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?

The description is five sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core action, content style, platform behavior, rate limit, and user confirmation. It is front-loaded with the primary function and contains no 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?

The description covers the essential details for invoking the tool, including parameter nuances (e.g., location resolution behavior is in the schema) and pre-flight user confirmation. It does not describe the return value or post-creation response, and there is no output schema, which leaves a small gap; however, this is not critical for a create action.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters thoroughly (100% coverage). The description adds useful extra guidance for the 'text' parameter, e.g., one to two sentences, concrete, without advertising language, which helps the agent generate an appropriate value. It does not add much for 'art' or 'ort' because the schema already covers them.

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 clearly that it publishes a request or offer on behalf of the user ('Stellt im Namen des Nutzers ein Gesuch oder Angebot ein'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_verwalten or post_melden, which handle management and reporting rather than creation.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: whenever the user wants to post a request or offer. It also gives important interaction rules (ask for confirmation, max 5/hour), though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as post_verwalten for editing existing posts.

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