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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds immutability, public readability, and that it does not execute/approve/merge—important behavioral context beyond annotations. Missing rate limits or return behavior, but solid.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then constraints, then a pointer. No redundant or filler text; each sentence adds distinct value.

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?

Given the minimal schema (one undocumented object) and no output schema, the description covers key prerequisites, public exposure, and scope limitations adequately. It defers full parameter details to a required reading step, which is sufficient for correct invocation though not self-contained.

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 0% and the single 'submission' parameter is an undocumented nested object. The description mentions two required inner fields (operator_authorized, publication_confirmed) and directs to get_contribution_inbox for the exact contract, partially compensating but still leaving many details unspecified.

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 'Publish' and resource 'one immutable contribution'. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but it is the only submit-like tool among its siblings. The purpose is clear without needing the schema.

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?

Gives prerequisites (operator_authorized and publication_confirmed flags) and constraints ('No private data or secrets'), plus a prerequisite step ('First read get_contribution_inbox'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, but context is clear.

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