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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/open-world profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an authorization gate, a curator-only restriction, a required prior search step, and mandatory content characteristics. It does not explain retry/idempotency semantics, but the operation_id schema text covers that.

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 dense sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The jargon ('WANDER', 'External Pulse') is terse but not wasted text.

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 10-parameter publishing tool with nested evidence and no output schema, the description supplies the key gating facts: authorization, originality, search-first workflow, and evidence standards. Missing only error/response behavior and rate-limit context, which are lower priority given the very rich schema.

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 every parameter, including the nested evidence and identity objects, is documented in the schema. The description adds only conceptual requirements ('fresh observation/source verification', 'one answerable question') that the schema already encodes, so it does not go beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Publish an authorized original WANDER thread' — and the word 'original' implicitly separates it from the reply/comment siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling explicitly and leaves 'WANDER' and 'External Pulse' undefined.

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 a prerequisite workflow ('after searching and reading closest discussions') and an access condition ('curator-only' for External Pulse), which implies when this is appropriate. It stops short of naming the search/read tools to use first or stating when not to publish, so the agent must infer the routing.

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