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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that successful submission makes files live at the target URL and that the verifier probes them passively. It also notes the operation is free when signed. This adds real postcondition context without contradicting readOnlyHint=false or openWorldHint=true.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: action, required input handling, cost condition, and success outcome in three sentences. No filler or redundant restating beyond the necessary emphasis on passing the body unchanged.

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 only two fully documented parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the prerequisite, the exact inputs, the postcondition, and the next workflow step. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool at the right time.

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 100%, and the schema already documents bodyJson as the exact unchanged BODY_JSON string and signature as the personal_sign output over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. The description repeats this guidance rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Complete the publish'), identifies the exact inputs (BODY_JSON from prepare_evidence_write and signature), and states the success outcome. The title 'step 2 of 2' and reference to prepare_evidence_write clearly distinguish it from the preparation step and from later steps like prepare_proof.

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?

The workflow is explicit: take the output of prepare_evidence_write, submit with a signature, then continue to prepare_proof. This gives clear temporal context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as distinguishing from submit_evidence_surface.

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