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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the auth model (bearer token configured by the human guarantor in the MCP client, never as arguments), quota and moderation exposure, possible quarantine, and public-ledger recording with fingerprint. It does not state whether deposits are irreversible or how moderation outcomes are surfaced, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then clearly labeled 'When to use', 'Notes', and 'Example arguments' sections. Every line adds decision-relevant information; nothing is padding.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, quotas, moderation, and ledger effects, which is substantial. The remaining gap is what a successful call returns (document id, ledger reference, quarantine status), which the agent must guess.

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% and each parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by giving a concrete argument example that shows title/text/license working together and reinforces the license choice as a deliberate declaration.

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 ('Add a document to the public archive') with two distinguishing facts that no sibling shares: license declaration and SHA-256 ledger recording. This clearly separates it from read_document, cite_document, and search_archive.

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?

An explicit 'When to use' clause names the intended content types (summary, dataset note, source card) and a hard exclusion ('Personal data are forbidden'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for adjacent cases, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not/alternatives routing.

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