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

The annotations show this is a write operation with an external effect: readOnlyHint is false and openWorldHint is true. The description adds several useful practical details: the entry is public, there is a rate limit of 5 per hour, and the platform assigns a category and matches people in the background. It does not explain what happens on failure or what the response looks like.

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 purpose comes first, followed by writing style, platform behavior, the rate limit, and the confirmation requirement. Each sentence earns its place, and there is no filler, though the confirmation step could have been placed earlier.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description still covers the essentials: it states the public visibility, the rate limit, the confirmation requirement, and the background matching. The response format is mentioned only indirectly — through the 'ort' field — so the description is nearly complete.

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 the schema already documents 'art', 'ort', and 'text' in detail, including the fallback behavior for 'ort'. The description adds style guidance for 'text' — one to two sentences, concrete, and without marketing language — but otherwise it does not add information beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it posts a 'Gesuch oder Angebot' on behalf of the user, matching the 'art' enum. This is clear enough to separate it from 'post_verwalten' or 'meine_posts', even though no sibling is named.

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 clearly states a prerequisite before calling: ask the user whether they really want to post, since the entry is publicly visible. It also gives a rate limit of 5 per hour. What is missing is a direct comparison with alternative tools such as editing, managing, or reporting an existing post.

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