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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing rate limits (3 per client per day, 30 overall), the one-submission-per-draft rule, and exactly which fields get published plus the privacy guarantee that email is never published. Missing only what an error or a rejected submission returns, though the output schema covers return shape.

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 step label and action, then consent precondition, then publication/limit facts. Three dense sentences with no filler; each clause carries operational meaning.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain returns, and it fills the remaining gaps: consent workflow, draft provenance, published vs. private fields, and quota limits. That is everything an agent needs before invoking a non-idempotent, open-world publish action.

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% and both parameters are documented there as items returned by draft_sighting_report. The description mentions the token/draft dependency only indirectly ("draft prepared by draft_sighting_report"), so it adds little beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 (send/submit a draft) and resource (a drafted sighting report to the Vigi-Sky Witness station), and positions itself explicitly as "step 2 of 2" relative to draft_sighting_report. An agent can immediately separate this from drafting or cancelling siblings.

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 precondition: call only after showing the summary and obtaining the witness's explicit agreement, and only for a draft produced by draft_sighting_report. The presence of sibling tools like cancel_sighting_report and sighting_report_limits is implicitly handled by naming the draft dependency and the limits inline.

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