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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so admirably. It discloses that the tool returns an endpoint and body rather than posting directly, that the free tier is rate-limited per IP, that the response includes an ownerToken for editing/withdrawing, and that new notices start at the bottom. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 three sentences, each with high information density. It is front-loaded with the purpose ('Prepare a free notice') and then provides essential behavioral and output details without any fluff.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the key return values (ownerToken, boostEndpoint), the rate limit, and the ordering behavior. It covers the tool's behavior and output sufficiently for an agent to use it correctly, given the schema already documents all parameters.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including an enum for board and max lengths for title/body. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 the tool prepares a free notice and returns the REST endpoint and body to POST. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seneschal_board_read, seneschal_board_list, and seneschal_board_reply, which focus on reading or replying, while seneschal_board_boost covers ranking. The scope (free tier, rate-limited) adds specificity.

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 provides clear context: use this to prepare a free notice, with a rate-limit warning for the free tier. It also hints at an alternative by saying 'boost to rank up', which implicitly points to the boost tool, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use this tool.

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