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

Annotations already say non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent; the description adds what actually happens: nothing is published, a summary/draft id/secret token are returned, and the immediate explanation appears when place and time are supplied. Expiry and rate limits are disclosed, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

One tight paragraph, front-loaded with 'Step 1 of 2' and the no-publish guarantee, followed by outputs, then the branching next step and limits. Every sentence carries information.

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, yet the description still names the key returned artifacts (summary, draft id, secret token) briefly. The consent/approval workflow, alternatives, and rate limits are all present, so an agent can complete the two-step flow without guessing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a real behavioral link by noting that place and time parameters trigger the immediate explanation in the response. It does not re-explain individual fields, which is appropriate given the schema.

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 ('prepare a draft report of something seen in the sky') and immediately scopes it as non-publishing. The 'step 1 of 2' framing distinguishes it from submit_sighting_report and cancel_sighting_report.

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?

Explicit sequencing: draft now, then call submit_sighting_report only after the witness explicitly agrees, otherwise cancel_sighting_report. Adds operational limits (10-minute expiry, 5 drafts per client per hour) that tell the agent when to reuse vs. redraft.

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