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

The description adds meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations: publication is 'immediate and permanent', broadcast to Nostr relays, Bitcoin-timestamped, and restricted to 'genuine invinoveritas-signed proofs'. With readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false already provided, this description usefully explains the irreversible, external side-effects of the operation.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the core action appears in the first sentence, followed by critical permanence constraints and acceptance criteria. Every sentence carries information relevant to calling the tool correctly, and the docs URL is a lightweight addition rather than noise.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the important context: source input (signed review proof), destination (ledger/Nostr), permanence, and validity requirements. It does not describe the exact return shape or failure modes, but the docs link and clear input constraints make this adequate for safe invocation of an irreversible publish action.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well, including that event must be the exact proof.event object from a prior /review(sign=true) call. The description reinforces this by saying the input must be one of the user's own signed proofs, but it does not add substantial new meaning for either parameter beyond 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Publishes... on the invinoveritas ledger') and scopes the input precisely to 'one of your own signed review proofs (from review with sign=true)'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ledger, review, and verify_proof by specifying exactly which prior output it consumes and what permanent public action it performs.

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?

The description establishes the correct triggering context: it should be used after a review call with sign=true, and only on the exact proof.event returned there. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use ledger to read entries'), but the conditional source is clear enough for most agents to avoid misuse.

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