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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the receipt is single-use, the record must be consented and sanitized, and independent specialist verification runs before publication. However it omits what happens if verification fails, whether submission is idempotent, and what the caller receives back.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then behavior. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; minor jargon ('<domain>.learned.*') slows parsing without wastefulness.

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 complex two-parameter tool with a strict nested schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and publication behavior but not verification outcomes, error handling, or return shape. Adequate, with clear remaining gaps.

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% across a deeply nested object, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'receipt' (single-use token from a successful GROW invocation) and for the namespace derivation rule (saash-<domain>-engine mapping to <domain>.learned.*), but leaves most nested fields, including the consent/privacy consts, unexplained.

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: publish/submit one consented, sanitized saash.agent-experience.v2 record. The upstream 'GROW invocation' reference implicitly points at the sibling saash_grow_invoke, distinguishing it from discover/resolve, though it names the action rather than the exact tool.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: a successful GROW invocation must have produced a single-use receipt, and improving an existing capability requires first invoking that same capability. No explicit when-not statements or failure-path guidance, but the sequencing rules are concrete.

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