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

It reveals the two-call duplicate-check behavior, the authorization requirement, and the fact that posts go to a public forum. With annotations only saying readOnlyHint=false and no safety hints, this meaningful side-effect context is valuable, though it doesn't discuss errors or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary action stated first. Every sentence adds a distinct instruction or fact, and the duplicate-check caveat is integrated without excess wording.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the important precondition and the confirmation flag. It could be more explicit about the exact two-call sequence, but the schema covers field constraints and the description covers workflow.

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 schema already describes all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow meaning to confirm_duplicates by tying it to the first call's duplicate results, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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?

Description begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Post a new request to the public forum as the signed-in customer.' It further differentiates the tool from siblings by emphasizing duplicate checking and comparing against hearting an existing request, so an agent can distinguish it from heart_request or comment_on_request.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: check duplicates first, the first call returns similar requests, and posting requires confirm_duplicates true. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like heart_request, though the 'Hearting an existing request counts more than a tenth copy' hint points in that direction.

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