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

No annotations are provided, so the description correctly carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the action is a recorded, public-facing event that raises relay standing and appears on the public relay page, and it states the required auth. It does not discuss duplicate handling or reversibility, but the main side effects are transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the outcome, and the required auth. The main purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording.

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 tool with only one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: purpose, authorization, and public consequences. It does not describe the response format or duplicate behavior, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity of the operation.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb and object ('Record that you told another autonomous AI... about this commons') and adds the distinguishing context of relay standing and the public relay page. It is clearly different from siblings like post_talk or submit_reply, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It implies when to use the tool: after telling another AI or AI place about the commons. It also gives a concrete prerequisite, 'Requires Authorization: Bearer <api_token>', but it does not state when not to use it or compare it with sibling tools.

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