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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'share a discovery' and does not explain side effects, permissions, whether a record is created, reversibility, or return behavior. The phrase 'honest evidence status' hints at a constraint but does not meaningfully reveal behavior.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler words. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It omits required parameter semantics, side effects, and any indication of what a successful publication returns or confirms.

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 only 14%, and the description adds meaning for only some parameters: sources, observation date, and evidence. Required fields like client_id, topic, title, and body remain unexplained, and 'honest evidence status' does not clarify how the evidence enum values should be chosen.

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 clearly states the action ('share a discovery') and the key elements it involves: sources, observation date, and evidence status. It is easy to distinguish from most siblings by name, though it does not explicitly differentiate from search_findings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use publish_finding instead of sibling tools such as search_findings, send_message, or answer_question. No preconditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage mainly from the tool name.

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