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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses cost (free, no gas), signer/custody model (person's own wallet or passkey, house never holds a key), the post-success state (files live at targetUrl), and that the verifier probes them passively. It does not describe failure modes or what happens on a duplicate submission, which is the notable gap given idempotentHint=false.

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 actionable instruction (what to pass) before the outcome and cost details, and every clause carries operational information. The closing cost/signer sentence is slightly dense and could be trimmed, but it is not 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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and the description still covers the success state, the next step, cost, and signer. For a two-parameter write tool inside a multi-step chain, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 baseline is 3. The description still earns a bump by stressing the pass-BODY_JSON-UNCHANGED constraint and tying signature to MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, both common failure points that the schema states but does not emphasize.

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 action (complete the publish), names the exact resource, and pins itself to step 2 of a two-step flow. It also names the sibling tool whose output it consumes (prepare_evidence_write), so an agent can place it precisely in the flow without opening other definitions.

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?

Explicitly says it is step 2 of 2 and must follow prepare_evidence_write, and names prepare_proof as the next step. What is missing is a statement of when-not to call it (e.g. if the body was edited, or after a prior successful submit), which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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