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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the description carries the rest and delivers it: the record has a TTL of 5–120 seconds, it expires and requires refreshing, and it is never publicly listed. It also specifies the exact signing scheme, which is essential operational context absent from the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the remaining sentences each add necessary operational detail (body format, TTL bounds, signing string, expiry, privacy). It is dense with no obvious filler, though the embedded JSON literal and signing formula make it slightly harder to scan.

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 no output schema and a mutation tool, the description supplies the signing contract, TTL constraints, expiry behavior, and the visibility guarantee an agent needs to call it correctly. It omits only edge cases such as overwrite/replace semantics for an existing record or failure behavior, which are minor 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 schema already documents key, sig, and body at a basic level (baseline 3). The description goes beyond it by defining the internal shape of body ({w, tags, ttl}), the tag limits (up to 8 short lowercase tags), the ttl range, and the exact signed-message construction, which the schema does not provide.

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) and resource (your reachability/presence record) and scopes it to 'those who already know your key' and notes 'It is never listed', which implicitly separates it from the directory-listing siblings like aamio_presence_lookup / aamio_presence_get. An agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings 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?

Usage context is only implied: the audience phrase 'for those who already know your key' and 'The record expires and must be refreshed' hint at when this tool is relevant. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g., why use presence_set instead of presence_get or lookup).

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