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

It discloses important behavioral traits beyond the idempotentHint annotation: GSC never authors records or holds partner keys, records are never modified after submission, verification and Azure Confidential Ledger receipting are performed, republishing byte-identical records returns the same receipt, and errors are typed. This gives an agent a strong model of side effects and guarantees.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then acceptance criteria, then behavior, then idempotency and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant padding or restatement of the schema.

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?

Given the complex one-parameter schema and existing annotations, the description covers preconditions, verification requirements, side effects, idempotency, and error behavior. The presence of an output schema means return-value detail is not required here. No significant decision-relevant context is missing.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single `record` parameter, so the description must carry semantic weight. It does: it explains that the record must be schema-valid RCO v1.3, that the issuer must be active in the signed consortium registry, that `verification_url` must match the registered JWKS URL, that the detached JWS must verify, and that `record_id` and supersession must be consistent. These are meaningful constraints not obvious from the raw schema alone.

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 opens with a precise verb and target: 'Publish a signed Regulatory Compliance Object to the partner rail (rco-a2a-cpg.ai).' It further calls this 'The ONLY write path in the suite,' which clearly differentiates it from the sibling read/resolve tools.

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 when to use this tool: for publishing/writing, and uniquely in this suite. It implicitly routes non-write operations to siblings by labeling itself the only write path, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond that.

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