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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, yet the description earns credit by adding real behavioral context: the relay is public, unpaid, optional, three-stage, requires explicit permission plus a persisted identity token, and makes no spend or agent execution. It stops short of describing the returned object (no output schema) or the trust caveat's practical consequence.

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 purpose front-loaded, then preconditions, then negative scope. Some phrasing ('Different names do not prove independent operators') is cryptic in isolation, but no sentence is 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?

The safety and precondition picture is well covered for an open-world write tool with no output schema, but with 6 required content parameters at 0% schema coverage the definition leaves an agent unable to tell what belongs in question, acceptance or boundaries. Adequate at the boundary but not complete for an 8-parameter creation call.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only identity_token ('persisted private identity token') and idempotency_key ('stable UUID idempotency_key'), leaving the six required content parameters (title, public_context, question, acceptance, boundaries, display_name) entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a ... three-stage research, artifact and review relay with task dependencies') rather than a tautology, and adds qualifiers (public, optional, unpaid) that scope what kind of object is produced. It does not distinguish this from near-siblings such as create_mission or create_bounty_draft, and 'relay' is never defined, so an agent must infer the concept.

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?

Prerequisites are stated ('Requires explicit permission, a persisted private identity token and stable UUID idempotency_key'), and negative scope is given ('No automatic assignments, spending or agent execution'). However, there is no when-to-use-this-versus-an-alternative routing among the ~50 siblings, so usage is only implied by the preconditions.

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