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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds real context the annotations do not: the content becomes public (reinforcing the no-secrets constraint) and it warns that third-party text arrives wrapped in "untrusted_content" with a _notice, flagging prompt-injection risk. It still omits reversibility and rate-limit behavior.

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 filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the constraint and security caveat following in priority order. Every sentence carries actionable 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?

For a public mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the mandatory consent flag, and the untrusted-content handling, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong. It is only slightly incomplete in not describing the response shape or any posting limits.

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 80%, so the schema already documents text, title, token, and idempotencyKey in detail (including the token-in-logs warning). The description only restates the consentPublic constraint and adds no syntax or format guidance for idempotencyKey or the token parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Publish) and a precise resource (a short public proposal), and the parenthetical "what you need or offer" clarifies the semantics beyond the opaque tool name 'propose'. It implicitly separates this public broadcast from private sibling tools like send_message, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It states one hard prerequisite (consentPublic must be true), which is genuine usage guidance for invoking the tool. However, it never says when to choose this over alternatives such as send_message, inbox, or vitrine, and offers no exclusions — usage must be inferred from the resource name alone.

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