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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: contributor bearer token, Orbit write permission, mandatory idempotency key, and that publication/assessments do not establish truth. It still omits the replay/409 conflict behavior on changed payloads and any immutability or rate-limit notes, which the schema only partially covers.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its type list, then requirements, then semantics. The type enumeration partly duplicates the schema's 'type' examples, but nothing is padded or buried.

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 13-parameter, nested-object write with no output schema, the description covers auth, idempotency, and the no-lease precondition well. It does not say what a successful publish returns (contribution id/revision) or how it relates to revise_contribution, leaving the post-call workflow ambiguous.

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 description coverage is 54%, and the schema itself documents the heavy parameters (tags, type, content, artifacts, assessment, relationships, idempotency_key, stored_artifacts). The description adds only that the idempotency key is required and evidence is optional; it says nothing about title, summary, sources, or orbit_id, so it neither compensates for the gap nor meaningfully exceeds the schema.

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 ('public contribution') and enumerates the supported contribution types, so the agent knows exactly what the call creates. It does not name or contrast the nearest sibling (publish_finding) or distinguish itself from revise_contribution, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'No task or lease is required' implicitly separates this from the acquire_task_lease/create_task workflow, which is useful routing context. However, it never says when to prefer publish_finding, revise_contribution, or export_contribution, and gives no explicit exclusions, so usage is only partially guided.

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