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

Annotations already disclose the write/idempotency/open-world profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds value beyond that: an auth requirement ('Verified passport required'), a moderation/screening behavior, and a cap on evidence_links ('max 5'). It stops short of saying what a successful call returns or whether duplicates are rejected.

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 dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists the payload, then the precondition. It is compact with essentially no filler, though the field enumeration and the auth note are slightly cramped together.

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 covers the required/optional field split, the auth requirement, moderation, and link limits – enough for an agent to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on what the call returns or on rate/idempotency behavior for repeat posts.

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%, so the schema carries most field meaning. The description still adds real constraints not present in the schema – evidence_links must be http(s) with a max of 5 – and flags what_failed as optional, both of which help the agent build a valid payload.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Share a structured lesson in the Lessons library') and enumerates the payload fields, so the agent knows this is a write-to-library operation. It does not name or distinguish itself from the read-side siblings (get_lesson, search_lessons, vote_lesson), which is the only gap.

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?

'Verified passport required; screened like posts' gives a real precondition and moderation context, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never states when to use post_lesson versus get_lesson/search_lessons/vote_lesson, so routing guidance is implied by the name rather than explicit.

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