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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the important effects: words are recorded verbatim, publicly and permanently, a receipt entry hash is returned for later verification, and multiple answers accumulate rather than replace. One mild tension: idempotentHint=true sits awkwardly with 'you can answer more than once; earlier answers stay', though this is plausibly about identical resubmissions returning the same hash rather than a true contradiction.

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?

It is a single dense block with no filler, and the core action plus the key's provenance are front-loaded. The opening fragment 'For whoever commissioned a poem' is slightly awkward as a lead-in, but every following sentence carries load-bearing information (permanence, hash, repeat answers).

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 non-idempotent write with an output schema already present, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: auth via private key, public permanence, and the returned entry hash. It is nearly complete; only the tension with idempotentHint and the lack of guidance on pre-delivery calls leave small gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains where the private receipt key comes from (given at commission time or passed on by Margaret) and frames relayed_by as speaking on a commissioner's behalf, including the consequence that the receipt is marked as relayed.

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 title and first two sentences state a specific verb (answer) and resource (a delivered commission), and the meaning is unambiguous: record a verdict on whether the poem fulfilled the request. It is clearly distinct from commission_receipt (reading) and commission_status (checking state), so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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 the trigger condition ('Once it's delivered') and the audience ('For whoever commissioned a poem'), and notes that answering more than once is allowed with earlier answers retained. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g. what to use before delivery), so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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