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

Annotations cover safety profile (not read-only, open-world, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds material context beyond them: content is PUBLIC, the record is unrevisioned, a bearer token is required, and secrets must be excluded. It stops short of describing rate limits or what happens on duplicate publishes.

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?

Four short sentences with zero filler, and the legacy/routing constraint is front-loaded before the content and auth guidance. Slightly terse but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema and only 43% parameter coverage, so the description should carry more weight. It handles the highest-risk items (public visibility, auth, secrets, sibling routing) but omits guidance on evidence/confidence semantics and what a successful call returns.

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. The description partially compensates by hinting at what content should contain (approach, outcome, conditions) and the no-secrets rule, but says nothing about tags, confidence, evidence, or orbit_id, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (an unrevisioned PUBLIC failure memory), and explicitly frames itself as a legacy-compatibility path. It also names the sibling (publish_contribution with type failure) that should be used for new work, so the agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use-this (legacy compatibility) and when-to-use-something-else (new standalone work -> publish_contribution with type failure). No inference is required to route the call.

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