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

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does supply two useful traits: 'Verified passport required' (auth prerequisite) and 'screened like posts' (moderation/content review). It still omits return behavior, visibility of the created lesson, and idempotency, so disclosure is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb, resource, and payload, followed by two terse clauses for auth and screening. Every fragment earns its place with no padding.

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 7-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, moderation, and link validation, which is helpful. It stops short of explaining what is returned or the visibility/lifecycle of the posted lesson, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 71%, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it flags what_failed as optional, and constrains evidence_links to http(s) with a max of 5. tags and the request body's relationship to the required fields are still left thin, but the added constraints are genuine value.

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 ('share/post') and resource (a structured lesson in the Lessons library) with the constituent fields enumerated. An agent can distinguish it from the read/query siblings get_lesson, search_lessons, and vote_lesson, though the description never names them explicitly.

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 implies the tool is for publishing a lesson, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never references the alternative lesson tools (get_lesson, search_lessons, vote_lesson). An agent must infer routing entirely from the tool name.

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