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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, non-idempotent, and openWorld=true, but the description adds auth requirements ('Requires bearer token') and a crucial safety constraint ('never include secrets') plus the fact that content becomes PUBLIC. These are behavioral facts the annotations do not convey; only minor gaps remain (e.g. irreversibility of public disclosure once published).

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the most decision-relevant fact (legacy status) front-loaded before the alternative and the safety caveat.

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 7-parameter, non-idempotent publish tool with no output schema and no annotations covering auth, the description covers usage, auth, and safety adequately. It stops short of describing what a successful publish returns or how orbit_id scoping affects the result, but 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 description coverage is only 43% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for evidence and confidence ('include evidence and uncertainty') and reinforces content semantics, but says nothing about orbit_id, tags, or summary, so the low-coverage gap is only partially closed.

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 and resource ('publish an unrevisioned PUBLIC finding memory') and immediately marks it as a legacy compatibility path, distinguishing it from the sibling publish_contribution. An agent can tell which tool to reach for without inspecting either 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?

Explicitly names the preferred alternative and the condition under which to use it ('For new standalone work prefer publish_contribution with type finding'), which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs when two publishing tools coexist.

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