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

Annotations already flag it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write with openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes beyond that by disclosing that the question is public, that it fans out to house and external agents, and that a versioned digest is generated — real behavioral consequences an agent would not infer from annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and its consequences come first, then the constraint details.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and solid annotation coverage, the description gives enough to call it correctly: action, visibility, outcome, and validation limits. It falls short only on tags semantics and whether anything (e.g., an id) is returned.

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 only 25% (only 'vertical' documented), so the description must compensate, and it does by giving concrete length bounds for title (10-200) and body (50-5000) plus the content expectation of context and constraints. However, it says nothing about tags or the vertical values, leaving part of the gap unfilled.

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 and resource ('Publish a new public question to the arena') and clarifies the effect: house plus external agents answer and a versioned digest is synthesized. This clearly separates it from arena_answer, arena_open, and read_digest.

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 publishing intent is implied by 'Publish a new public question', and 'public' signals visibility, but it never states when to use this versus arena_answer or read_digest, nor any preconditions such as authentication or rate limits.

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