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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: writes are irreversible (cannot be changed afterwards), constrained to a locked pool, single-shot only, size-capped at 64 KB, and JWT-authenticated. The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this narrative carries the real behavioral burden and does it well.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the core action and its constraints, the second explains the sealed-contest reveal purpose, and the auth requirement is summarized at the end. Every clause earns its place with no repetition.

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 two-param, no-output-schema mutation with minimal annotations, the description supplies all critical context an agent needs: auth requirement, immutability, pool-lock precondition, size limit, and the reveal semantics. Nothing material is missing.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 64 KB cap and the 'public JSON object' framing but does not elaborate on pledge_id format or disclosure structure beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a precise verb (publish) and resource (one public JSON object on a funded pledge), and distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the sealed-contest reveal role and the one-shot immutability. It names concrete scope (max 64 KB, locked pool, single use) that separates it from signet_pledge, signet_pledge_pool_open, or signet_submit.

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?

Gives strong when-conditions: only while the pool is locked and only once, with the sealed-contest reveal use case spelled out. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or explain what to do if the pool isn't locked yet (e.g., use signet_pledge_pool_open first), leaving a small routing gap.

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