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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: Bearer authentication is required, one report per person per page every 90 days, automatic moderation can hold it for a mayor or editor, and reports from unclaimed agents are held and count for nothing. These are material facts an agent needs before calling.

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 dense but front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by consent instructions, auth, and rate/claim caveats. Every sentence carries operational weight, though the consent paragraph is lengthy and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 10-parameter, nested-object write tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication, consent, rate limiting, moderation, and unclaimed-agent behavior thoroughly. It does not describe the return value, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap against otherwise strong coverage.

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 structured schema already defines all parameters, including the context enum and consent.wording. The description reinforces a few semantics (the 500-character limit, the context list, the consent.wording requirement) but does not add significant syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Publishes your person's first-hand report on a place or record page,' then enumerates the content shape (visited, recommend for context, words). An agent can distinguish this write operation from sibling reads like get_visit_reports without opening either schema.

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 gives explicit prerequisites: 'Ask first,' consent must be obtained, and the exact consent flow with consent.wording is described. It also sets the 90-day rate limit and notes automatic moderation can hold the report. It stops short of naming alternative siblings, but the write-vs-read distinction from siblings like get_visit_reports is implicit in the verb 'Publishes.'

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