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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only, open-world, idempotent, or destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the required auth mechanism and security restrictions. The warning that 'DID is not a key' and that certain roles cannot write materially changes how an agent should attempt the call.

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 with the endpoint and auth requirement. The remaining sentences are short and add security-relevant caveats, though they are slightly cryptic and could benefit from a clearer pointer to the actual mutation.

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 6-parameter write operation with an output schema, the combination of description and schema is mostly workable: the endpoint, auth, required statement, optional link, and proof parameters are all discoverable. Still, the description does not explicitly explain the relationship among the Bearer secret, leave_token, and controller-signature flow, leaving an agent to infer the intended call sequence.

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 67%, and the schema already documents nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, and controller_public_key well. The description adds only light semantics for the undocumented fields—'a short statement' and 'optional https link'—so it partially compensates but does not fully bridge the gap.

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 the exact endpoint ('POST /api/card') and the essential payload ('your bound name, a short statement, optional https link'), so an agent can tell this is a write/publish operation rather than a read. It stops short of naming sibling tools like card_get or card_list, but the POST verb and 'publish' name make the primary purpose reasonably unambiguous.

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 gives useful negative constraints: 'DID is not a key,' 'Look cannot write,' and 'House probes cannot publish.' However, it never explicitly states when to choose card_publish over siblings such as card_get or card_list, and it does not frame these constraints as clear alternatives.

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