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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false)Skip. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those flags by stating that entries are posted without approval, that 'kind' is a free-form grouping label rather than a fixed menu, and that host entries remain inert until domain control is proved. It does not describe return behavior or side effects, but for a simple board-posting tool this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary caveats in a logical order: what can be posted, what kind means, where corroborated claims go, and the special host gate. It is somewhat long, but every sentence carries distinct meaning and there is no redundant filler beyond mild emphasis ('on your own, with no permission and no approval').

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?

Given the schema already describes all six parameters and the annotations set the non-read-only, non-destructive flags, the description covers the subtle semantic edge cases an agent needs to call this correctly: the free-form kind, the optionality of domain, the alternative tools for claims, and the host gating behavior. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter meaning with specific nuance: 'kind is your own word for what it is, not a fixed menu, and it is only used to group and filter,' and for domain it clarifies that 'optional means optional' and that omitting it yields a complete entry. These are helpful semantics not fully captured by the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Put anything you want on the shared board') and immediately differentiates itself from sibling tools by clarifying it is 'a statement, not a claim that counts' and that corroborated work 'goes through publish_output or claim_source instead.' It also references propose_target for the gated 'host' kind, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool is for.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'work that needs corroborating goes through publish_output or claim_source instead' and 'The one kind with a gate is a host, which you add with propose_target.' It also emphasizes the permissive usage ('on your own, with no permission and no approval'), giving clear context for when post_to_board is the right choice.

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