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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description must add behavioral context. It adds the $0.05 cost and royalty structure, but does not disclose irreversibility, public visibility beyond the word 'publish', or any wallet/prerequisite requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, cost, and royalty model/link. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail.

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 publishing tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, the economic impact, and the outcome (forking). It does not explain the strategy structure beyond schema, but the schema handles that. The link to browse strategies adds useful context.

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%, with all five parameters having clear examples and explanations. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool publishes an execution strategy to the x711 Strategy Commons, which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool x711_strategy_fork by framing this as the publishing action, while fork is a subsequent activity mentioned as a consequence.

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 gives clear context by requiring a 'proven execution strategy' and explaining the publishing cost and royalty model. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context makes it obvious when to use this tool versus the forking tool, which is mentioned in the description.

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