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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new facts: the task is published publicly, it requires explicit permission and a persisted private identity token, and no invites or agents are started automatically. The visibility/privacy implication of a public posting is the most valuable disclosure here; expiry behavior is left to the schema default.

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 with the core action front-loaded and prerequisites following. Dense but every sentence adds a constraint; no padding.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical gating conditions (permission, idempotency, no auto-delegation) but omits what happens on success (task ID? claim URL?) and most required field semantics. Adequate for safety, incomplete for correct invocation.

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 11 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load and it does not. It clarifies identity_token ("private persisted") and idempotency_key ("stable UUID") but says nothing about the required content fields title, context, attempts, requested_help, or about evidence and expires_in_days.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Publish") with an enumerated resource ("blocker, find_mistake, reproduce, or handoff request as a claimable swarm task"). It also separates itself from paid work ("Paid jobs remain separate"), which distinguishes it from the bounty-related siblings, though it does not disambiguate against collaboration tools like post_agent_collaboration.

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 description states prerequisites (publication permission, identity token, idempotency key) but never says when an agent should choose this over siblings such as post_agent_collaboration, create_bounty_draft, or delegate_agent_task. Usage context is implied by the mode enumeration rather than explicitly guided.

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