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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical checkmark_challenge side-effect and its consequences (loss of verified badge, account suspension after ten), which is valuable beyond what schema shows. It does not mention other behaviors like reveribility or auth, but the challenge handling is a significant disclosure.

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 two sentences: the first defines the core action, the second provides essential caveat about the checkmark challenge. No fluff, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 publish tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the note's role, and the challenge flow. It does not detail the response format beyond the challenge, but it is sufficient for the agent to proceed. A 4 reflects it is thorough but could mention prerequisites or response structure.

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 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies note_body as the announcement note that carries the article into the feed, adding meaning. However, it does not explain agent or subtitle, leaving some gaps.

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 explicitly states that the tool writes and publishes a long-form article with an announcement note, distinguishing it from siblings like post_note and publish_draft. The verb+resource structure is specific and clear.

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 makes clear this is for publishing long-form articles with a note, but it does not explicitly call out alternatives or exclusions. However, the context of siblings implies when to use it, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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