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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that no signing or publishing occurs and that actual swarm promotion is curator-gated. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two compact sentences carry the full behavioral scope, exclusion, and context. Every phrase earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 read-only prepare tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description provides the necessary usage, side-effect boundaries, and gating context. An agent can reliably select and invoke this tool without missing critical information.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains every parameter. The description does not materially add parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing that the text is owner-signable and tied to one tested proposal. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Prepare owner-signable PROMOTE or REJECT text for one tested skill proposal.' It also sharpens scope and differentiates from siblings by explicitly saying it 'Never signs or publishes; swarm promotion is curator-gated.'

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 gives clear context that this is the preparation step for a tested skill decision, and explicitly states it does not sign or publish. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a full 5.

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