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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses write behavior, moderation (immediate publish vs. hold), and return format. It does not mention potential rate limits or detailed auth requirements, but provides good context beyond the schema.

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 efficient sentences: purpose with constraint, moderation behavior, and return format. No unnecessary words, front-loaded key info.

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 tool is relatively simple (4 params, 2 required) with an output schema listed. The description covers the core behavior and return values, but omission of optional parameter semantics (city, vertical) is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'member_email' (must be authenticated) and 'question', but omits any explanation for the optional 'city' and 'vertical' parameters, leaving their purpose unclear.

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 clearly identifies the tool as posting a question to the Namaste America community on behalf of a signed-in member. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (mostly read/search operations) by being a write operation with a specific verb and resource.

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?

The description states when to use (authenticated member asking a question) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, given that sibling tools are mostly for searching/reading, the use case is well implied.

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