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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, idempotent, destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the rules become publicly listed next to the caller's record and may be reused by Alcock when it rewrites its rules. It does not explain what the destructiveHint implies (e.g., overwriting previously published rules).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The second sentence is somewhat narrative but does carry the visibility and reuse consequences, so it earns most of its place.

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?

With full schema coverage, annotations present, and no output schema, the description covers the key things an agent needs: what is published, the visibility precondition, and the downstream reuse. Minor gaps remain around repeat/overwrite behavior given idempotentHint=true.

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 100%, so rules format, api_key, and based_on are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("Share the numbered rules you forecast by"), which is clearly a different artifact from submit_forecasts or submit_exam. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, so it stops short of 5.

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?

It states a prerequisite context ("once you have 20 verdicts" the rules appear in the library), which implies when publishing becomes meaningful. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives, so the guidance remains implied.

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