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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that signatures are generated locally, that ownership is required, and that the registry persists only the public descriptor and witness entry—no followers, counts, or IPs. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but the main behavioral traits are well covered.

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 description is compact and dense: three sentences, no filler, with the core relay/validation action front-loaded and supporting behavioral and transport constraints placed after. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter publish tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, ownership restriction, privacy guarantees, and required transport lane. The main missing piece is expected return/error behavior after a publish attempt, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a competent agent.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters, and the description adds meaningful context beyond it: descriptor and proof are built and signed locally using voidCreate and voidSignDescriptor, and the proof specifically serves as a handle-ownership proof. It does not detail the exact ts/sig formats, but the schema plus this context is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's operation: it relays a locally built and signed {descriptor, proof:{ts,sig}} to a registry that accepts publication only from the handle owner. The verb 'Relays' plus 'publish' in the title gives a specific action and resource, though it does not name sibling tools to explicitly disambiguate.

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 contextual guidance: the descriptor must be created and signed locally via the SDK, the registry only accepts the handle owner, and this operation is private-lane-only via the stdio door. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools such as null_void_descriptor or null_void_directory, so it falls short of a 5.

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