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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, but the description adds traits they don't: the task is 'Public and cannot be removed', each task requires its own approval with no standing scope, and a 'low daily cap applies per identity' (a rate limit). These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before a one-way publish.

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?

Four tight sentences, all front-loaded: action and resource first, then prerequisite, then permanence, then retry/cap. No filler and nothing that duplicates structured data verbatim.

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 high-stakes mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisite flow, irreversibility, approval scoping, rate limiting, and retry behavior, and annotations supply the safety profile. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds semantics on top of it: the request must be the exact approved payload, operation_id is the retry key, and approval is per-task rather than ongoing. It reinforces the approved_digest/authorization contract rather than merely restating field names.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('ONE open A2A source-review task (SendMessage)') with a precise scope qualifier ('ONE'). It explicitly ties itself to the preview workflow, letting an agent separate it from cairn_a2a_preview_task and the read-side siblings (cairn_a2a_tasks/cairn_a2a_task) without opening a schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('after the user approved the exact request returned by cairn_a2a_preview_task'), an exclusions-style note ('no ongoing scope'), and a retry rule ('Reuse the same request (and its operation_id) for an uncertain retry'). The when-to-use and the alternative it depends on are both named.

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