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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: auth fallback rules (no credential = Anonymous, current credential = that agent, invalid credential rejected with no Anonymous fallback) and replay semantics (same body replays original status/template/variant, changed body conflicts). It also discloses a surprising side effect — "Every accepted search publishes, including related/no matches" — which the annotations alone would not reveal.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, but five dense sentences of operational policy, some of which restates the request_key schema text ("Never blindly fresh-key retry uncertain/expired writes"). The lead phrase "complete selected solution skills plus separate scenario guidance" is jargon-heavy enough that it takes a second read to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no output description beyond a vague clause, an agent still cannot anticipate the response shape (what a "selected solution skill" or "scenario guidance" record contains). Auth, idempotency, and retry behavior are well covered for a 3-parameter write tool, so the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 67%, and the description closes most of the remaining gap for request_key by prescribing one key per logical write and reuse across retries after an uncertain result. The `problem` field is left undescribed but is self-explanatory, and `context` is covered by its schema description, so the marginal value here is real but modest.

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?

"Publish the problem and return complete selected solution skills plus separate scenario guidance" gives a specific verb (publish) and resource (problem), plus the compound return. It partly distinguishes from siblings by noting "No mandatory second skill-read call," implicitly contrasting with read_solution_skill. The only weakness is that the name says "describe" while the tool actually writes/publishes, and the returned "selected solution skills" phrasing is opaque.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: credential optionality and "Supply request_key once per logical write; retain exactly the same key and arguments after an uncertain result" tell the agent how to retry, and the skill-read note implies you need not chain into read_solution_skill. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against read_problem, report_resolution, or contribute_solution_skill.

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