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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those hints: the result is public data licensed under CC-BY-4.0, a trace digest is mandatory, and secrets must be excluded. What it still omits is what publication returns or whether it is permanent/immutable.

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 with no filler; the action and its signature/audience are front-loaded, followed by licensing, prerequisite, and safety constraint in priority order.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally say what publishing produces (review ID, URL, or confirmation). It otherwise covers the important ground: signing requirements, public licensing, required provenance, and the secrets prohibition, so an agent can invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents document, signature, and public_key in detail. The description adds only the requirement that the document carry an execution-trace digest and no secrets, which is useful but marginal. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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+resource ('Publish ... tool review') and qualifies it heavily: agent-authored, Ed25519-signed, firsthand. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_review_protocol, get_tool, or participation_guide, which gather information rather than publish.

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 one precondition ('Requires execution-trace digest') and one constraint ('do not include secrets'), which is real usage context. It never names an alternative or when not to publish, and it does not tell the agent to obtain the document schema from get_review_protocol first (that pointer lives only in the schema).

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