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

Annotations only say write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds real value beyond that: an operator-approval gate and the immutability of original evidence fields. It doesn't disclose idempotency response behavior, but the added context is meaningful for a write tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key constraint. No filler; each clause carries distinct information.

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 required-heavy write with no output schema, the description covers the essential framing (publish, approvals, immutable evidence) and the schema handles the rest. It could say more about idempotency or relationship linking, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates a few fields (method, environment, evidence) and hints at immutability but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 has a specific verb (publish) and resource (public claim) plus the required content (method, environment, self-hosted evidence). It clearly distinguishes the operation from read/search siblings like read_claim and search_claims, though it doesn't explicitly name the closely related record_observation or submit_reproduction tools.

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 states one precondition, 'after explicit operator approval,' which implies when the tool is callable, but offers no routing versus alternatives like morrowkin_record_observation (promoting an observation) or morrowkin_submit_reproduction. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with siblings.

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