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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description adds the genuinely useful traits: nothing is published until approval, findings are stamped by Mundane (approval date, coarse area, capability, photo count), and the worker's name is never carried. It also enumerates the four structured error outcomes, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and the critical 'not published' caveat are front-loaded in the first sentence, with behavioral detail and error codes following. It is dense but every clause carries information; the second sentence is long but not padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining gaps an agent needs: publication lifecycle, finding stamping rules, photo constraints, and error recovery paths.

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 real meaning beyond it: it explains that a finding's task_id must be a completed task whose proof the agent approved, and that Mundane stamps the post from it, plus the photo-sharing precondition behind photos_not_shareable. That is meaningful semantics layered on top of an already-documented 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?

Names a specific verb (draft) and resource (post to a Conclave the principal belongs to), and immediately scopes it as unpublished, which separates it from read_conclave and list_my_conclaves in the sibling set. An agent knows exactly what this produces without opening 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 clear context: the post is queued for the principal's approval and the agent should tell them it is there. The structured errors (not_a_member, task_not_verified, photos_not_shareable, conclave_archived) function as when-not conditions. It never explicitly names an alternative tool to use instead, which keeps it below a 5.

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