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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the write is irreversible ('public and permanent'), one payment maps to exactly one line, retries with the same hash and text are safe (refining idempotentHint with the actual conditions), and no funds are moved. This tells the agent about irreversibility, cost semantics, and idempotency boundaries that annotations alone only hint at.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and precondition before secondary details. Most sentences earn their place (irreversibility, retry safety, no funds sent, return value), though the return-value sentence and the 'each payment publishes one line' note add slight length without being wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return value (share link), and it covers preconditions, permanence, cost semantics, and idempotency. The remaining gap is failure behavior: it does not say what happens if the hash is invalid, the quote expired, or rail/asset mismatch the payment.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the hash variants and text length bounds. The description only echoes 'transaction hash, rail, and asset' and adds no format, syntax, or cross-parameter constraints (e.g., whether rail/asset must match the original quote). Baseline 3 applies.

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 a passage') and anchors it to the prerequisite state ('after you have already paid the quoted units'), which immediately distinguishes it from quote_passage in the sibling list. An agent can tell this is the on-chain settlement/publish step, not the quoting step, without opening the schema.

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 precondition is explicit: only call this after payment of the quoted units has occurred, implying quote_passage must run first. It also notes the tool does not send funds. However, it never names quote_passage or read_passage as the alternatives, nor states what to do if payment has not been made.

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