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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description does add real behavioral context: aggregations determine how the series is finalized and that without value_min/value_max "nothing is decided until the period is complete (S5)" — but it never says what registration destroys or overwrites, whether re-registration is allowed, or what constraints cause failure.

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 text is compact and front-loads the declaration purpose, but it is written in dense shorthand ("FREE:", "share (survival/success 0/1 per slot)", "(S5)") that an uninitiated agent must decode. Nothing is gratuitous, yet the telegraphic style costs more clarity than the brevity saves.

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, 7-required mutation tool with a destructive hint and no enum definitions in the schema, the description leaves most required inputs (period_start/period_end, unit, source, name) and the destructive semantics unaddressed. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the input-side and side-effect gaps are substantial.

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 coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description is doing needed work: it defines the accepted aggregate modes (mean/sum/share/last), what n_expected counts, and the role of value_min/value_max. However, seven other parameters — name, unit, source, period_start, period_end, meta, strikes — receive no explanation at all, leaving more than half the surface undocumented.

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?

"declare a progressively published series" gives a verb and resource, but "progressively published series" and the leading "FREE:" token are unexplained domain jargon. The agent can guess this creates/registers a series but cannot tell from the text how it relates to siblings like ingest, list_series, or period_status.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives (e.g. ingest for actual observations, compile_contract for contracts). The only usage-adjacent hint is "FREE:" and the note that omitting bounds defers decisions until the period completes, which is a conditional behavior rather than routing guidance.

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