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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the public-hosting consequence and the identity prerequisite, which is useful, but says nothing about whether publishing is permanent, how supersede/duplicate publishes behave, or any rate limit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opening with the action and destination, followed by a compact field rundown. The embedded parenthetical list is dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destination, the required identity, and the content payload. It is nearly complete for an 11-param write tool; only the relationship to sibling verification tools and supersedes semantics are left implicit.

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 91%, so the schema already documents the 11 fields, including the checks sub-object. The description's parameter list largely restates the schema ('command, environment, output_sha256, checks, limits'), adding only the parenthetical gloss on limits.

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?

Precise verb+resource: 'Publish a signed verification as your hosted identity', with the concrete destination (/v/ID plus a README badge). It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like log_proof, notary_stamp, or submit_work, which an agent may confuse with it.

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 prerequisite 'Needs a hosted identity (create_identity)' is a genuine usage gate and names the sibling to run first. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance versus the other verification-like tools, so routing remains partly inferred.

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