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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that the announcement is signed with the node's Ed25519 key and broadcast to connected peers. It still omits auth requirements, idempotency, or rate-limit behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences with the action front-loaded and the signing/broadcast mechanics second. No wasted words or filler.

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 simple 3-parameter announcement tool with no output schema and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the description covers the essential mechanics. The remaining gap is the undisclosed overlap with kernel_announce_capabilities rather than missing return or param detail.

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 kernelId, ttlSeconds, and capabilities are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or constraint detail beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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: 'Announce capabilities to the DHT network,' which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling kernel_announce_capabilities, leaving ambiguity about which announcement tool to use.

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 no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It never acknowledges the closely related sibling kernel_announce_capabilities, so the agent gets no routing guidance between the two.

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