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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it explains that PoW is always caller-computed, the server signs for this call only and never stores the key, and it warns about sending the seed to the server. It also discloses security considerations (trusted endpoint). This is robust transparency for an operation that mutates state.

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 dense but well-structured: it starts with the primary action, then explains the schema constraints and required credentials, then the critical PoW behavior, then the private_key caveat, and ends with the return value. Every sentence adds essential information, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, cryptographic requirements, security warnings) and the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the drop must contain, how signing works, PoW computation, and what is returned. Minor gaps include not detailing the exact shape of the returned attestation or mentioning rate limits, but overall it suffices for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the security implications of the private_key parameter (sends seed to server, use only on trusted endpoints) and clarifies that the pow must be supplied. It also expands the 'drop' parameter's meaning by listing its fields and protocol constraints, providing value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('validated drop at a coordinate'), with sufficient detail to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'contradict' or 'sweep'. It explains the core action and the required protocol constraints, so an agent understands exactly what this tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (publishing a validated drop) and includes critical preconditions (must conform to closed schema, requires proof-of-work). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity implies its usage scope, and the sibling list is small enough to infer differentiation.

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