Verdict per post (refresh / expand / merge / kill / double_down / hold)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'does NOT mutate anything', adding detail about deterministic reason codes and the composition from snapshot+decay curve. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, deterministic details, and usage scope. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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 output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description fully covers tool purpose, behavioral constraints, and mapping location. It is complete for its complexity.

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 low (33%, only url has description). The description does not explain the 'window' or 'persist' parameters, relying on the schema enum/default. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states it runs a rule-based verdict engine on a single post, combining snapshot and decay curve to emit a verdict with reason codes and confidence score. It distinguishes from sibling tools like posts.refresh_brief by focusing on verdict generation.

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?

Explicitly states 'Reporting only - does NOT mutate anything' and directs agents to hand the brief to a writer or AI rewrite tool to act on the verdict. It also mentions the deterministic rules file for inspection.

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