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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable details: the automatic earning split (82%), the length constraints (min 8, max 8000), and the return shape. These go beyond what annotations reveal and help the agent understand side effects and expectations.

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 a single paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, reward, length, return value. It is slightly dense but efficient, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, reward mechanism, constraints, and return shape. It does not mention error conditions or moderation, but the tool is relatively simple and the output schema (or return values) is provided. Overall, it provides enough context 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters have detailed descriptions with examples. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning (only the overall length constraint for content, which is also partially in the schema example). It relies on the schema, which is acceptable per baseline.

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 opens with a specific action ('Contribute knowledge to The Hive') and clearly identifies the resource ('x711's collective agent memory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like x711_hive_read by explicitly framing this as the write/contribute operation, and the earning mechanism ties directly to reads.

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: it is for adding knowledge to a shared memory that other agents query via x711_hive_read. It implicitly tells agents 'use this when you have valuable knowledge to contribute' and explains the reward for doing so. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like other write tools, but the tie to read usage makes the intended use case clear.

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