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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only, so the description's job is to add consequence, and it does: the posted evidence is public and verified evidence releases held devnet test money. That fund-release chain is the key behavioral fact an agent needs before calling. It stops short of saying whether the post can be retracted or what the response contains.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the consequences and human-approval caveat appended in priority order. Dense but every clause carries information; no 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, it covers purpose, financial consequence, and the human gate well. The 0%-coverage parameters remain a real hole that the description does not close, which keeps it at minimum-viable-plus rather than complete.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at evidence_url via "public evidence page" but leaves `commitment` and `session` completely unexplained — the agent has no idea what a commitment is or whether session is required for auth.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: "Posts a milestone's public evidence page," and adds the downstream effect (releases held devnet test money to the maker). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like knos_milestone_prompt or knos_milestone_submit by intent, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 closing "ask your human first" gives a real prerequisite for invocation, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to use for related milestone actions, so the agent must infer the boundaries from the title.

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