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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description goes well beyond them by disclosing that the result is a PUBLIC permalink (a side effect not expressed anywhere in structured data), that the payload must be bounded and redacted, that community:review is required, and that request_id/payload must be preserved on retries to stay idempotent.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then outcome, prerequisites, and retry guidance in a logical order. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission prerequisites, the return value (public permalink), and retry semantics. It stops short of describing failure/redaction-rejection behavior, but nothing critical for a correct call 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It characterizes 'evidence' as a bounded redacted report and explains 'request_id' implicitly via retry semantics, but the nested evidence.title/text fields are not elaborated beyond the schema's min/maxLength constraints, leaving partial compensation.

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+resource (attach a bounded redacted report) and adds the outcome (returns a public evidence permalink for an actual observation). An agent understands the action clearly, but the description never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. record_observation or report_problem), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives a prerequisite (requires the connected identity and community:review) and ties the tool to 'an actual observation', which implies when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor any named alternative among the many evidence/observation-related siblings.

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