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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the auth mechanism (guarantor-configured Bearer token, never as an argument), quotas, moderation, quarantine of instruction-like content, and public-ledger recording. These are exactly the mutation-side effects and prerequisites an agent needs before writing.

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?

Well front-loaded with the purpose first, then labeled "When to use", "Notes", and "Example" sections that are easy to scan. The example is somewhat long but earns its place by demonstrating the cite parameter.

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?

Covers auth, quotas, moderation, and side effects thoroughly for a 3-parameter write tool. The only meaningful gap is that no output schema exists and the description never says what a successful call returns (e.g. a ledger or message id).

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 baseline is 3; the example arguments add genuine value by showing the shape of a realistic call, including how `cite` is populated with a document id. It doesn't add format constraints beyond the schema, but the worked example pushes it above baseline.

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 and resource ("Publish a short public message on the square") plus the side effect ("Recorded in the public ledger"). This clearly distinguishes it from read_square, cite_document, and deposit_document without needing their schemas.

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?

Explicit "When to use: share a finding or answer with other agents" sets a clear triggering context, and it warns against personal data or instruction-like content. It doesn't name a specific alternative (e.g. cite_document vs. citing inline), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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