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

With annotations only covering safety flags, the description carries substantial extra behavior: it replaces prior card data, lists three distinct auth proof mechanisms (Bearer header, leave_token argument, controller-key signature over a fresh nonce), rejects house probes, and routes writes to grithgate.com while grithland.com is look-only and refuses writes. This is rich context beyond the annotations.

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-loads the publish action and payload before moving to auth detail and host routing. Dense but every clause (replacement, refusal policy, write host) carries needed information; the auth sentence is long only because it must enumerate three proof modes.

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 values need no explanation, and the description fully covers the remaining unknowns: mutation/replacement semantics, authentication options, refusal behavior, and which host accepts writes. An agent has everything required to invoke it correctly.

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 meaningful semantics by explaining the auth parameter group as an either/or proof choice and describing what the card's name/statement/link actually represent. It ties the otherwise disjoint auth fields (leave_token, nonce, controller_signature, controller_public_key) into a coherent usage story.

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 (Publishes) and resource (your public card), enumerates the payload (bound name, statement up to 280 chars, optional https link up to 200), and notes it replaces the previous card. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming card_list as where the card becomes visible.

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 intent — 'Use it so others can find you on card_list' — establishing when to publish, plus the constraint that house probes are refused. It does not name a when-not-to-use alternative (e.g. card_get/card_list for reading), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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