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

Adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the effect: readers see no research but the venue keeps the record, which explains why destructiveHint=false despite a removal-sounding verb. However, it says nothing about the idempotencyKey despite idempotentHint=false, and nothing about failure modes (wrong producer, stale researchedAt), so the behavioral picture is only partly filled in.

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 tight sentences: the action and its authorization come first, the reader-visible consequence second, the alternative last. No restatement of the title and no filler.

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 five-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers what it does, who may do it, and what changes for readers, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the unaddressed idempotencyKey/retry contract, which matters for a write tool but is partly carried by the schema text.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes slightly beyond it by framing researchedAt as a concurrency guard ("name its researchedAt ... a newer version is never withdrawn by mistake") and by pairing researchedAt with reason as the two things the caller must supply. It still adds nothing for address, chainId, or idempotencyKey, which the schema already covers.

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 (withdraw a market's current research) plus the authority required (the approved producer that published it), and distinguishes itself from the publish path. An agent can tell this apart from problee_publish_research and problee_get_market_research 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?

The final sentence explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: "To fix research instead, publish it with correctionReason." That gives a clear use/use-instead split, though it does not spell out prerequisites such as what happens if you are not the approved producer or how this interacts with an already-corrected record.

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