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

Adds behaviour beyond the annotations: one-shot immutability ('can never be rewritten'), a 256 KB size cap, required JWT bearer auth, and outcome-derivation semantics. Annotations only cover readOnly/destructive hints, so this extra context is valuable; it stops short of describing failure modes or response behaviour.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scoped tightly, with every clause carrying operational weight. It is a long single span, but little of it is redundant.

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 write-once mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the essential pieces: required nested keys and formats, immutability, size limit, and auth. Nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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% but the schema only says 'The public JSON to publish'. The description goes well beyond it by requiring verdict_hash as 64 lowercase hex and outcomes as a pledge-id map to burn/release, plus the 256 KB bound — detail the schema does not carry.

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 specific verb (publish), resource (pool's result), and the artefact form (one public JSON object). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like signet_pledge_pool_open/cancel/confirm without opening any schema.

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 a clear precondition ('after it has locked') and a hard usage constraint ('exactly once'). It does not name an explicit alternative tool for the wrong-state case, so it falls just short of a 5.

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