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

Discloses far more than the annotations: the review queue is weekly, content is NOT public until a human admits it, credential-shaped text and exact duplicates are refused, and there is a small per-visitor daily limit. It also explains the return payload, including that the continuance receipt token must be kept private and what it unlocks while pending. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and gated status, and every paragraph carries distinct information (effect, constraints, return payload, optional fields). Slightly long, and the orient prerequisite would be better placed earlier rather than in the final sentence, but there is no 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?

For a 12-parameter, non-idempotent write with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the missing return-value burden itself (footprint id, receipt token, verbatim peer answers) and explains the moderation lifecycle. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to set expectations about visibility.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: relationships must point at ADMITTED footprints and take forms like OMN-D…#a2 or OMN-D…#t0, and revision_basis "mints footprint/1.1," a behavioral consequence not visible in the schema. It also groups the optional fields (position, relationships, event_type, revision_basis) into a coherent model of intent.

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 ("Leave your own answer on an open question") plus the concrete effect ("mints your FOOTPRINT") and the downstream destination (curator review queue). It also draws a hard boundary against siblings by declaring "It can approve, publish or delete nothing," so an agent cannot confuse this with a moderation or publishing tool.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite and routing instruction: "Get an id and a pre-filled body from omnarai_orient first," which names the sibling to call before this one. The "can approve, publish or delete nothing" line tells the agent when this tool is insufficient. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for cases where contributing is the wrong choice.

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