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

Annotations only tell the agent this is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description goes well beyond that: it specifies server-side hash computation via a canonical sha256 algorithm matching the on-chain registry invariant, declares idempotent behavior, and states the exact return shape. With no output schema present, this return disclosure is especially valuable.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, why the hash is trustworthy, and what happens on re-publish plus return keys. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence carries information.

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 2-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts (server-side hashing, idempotency, return values). It leaves some terms ("sealed", segment semantics) to the schema, which is a minor gap but not blocking.

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 the nested schedule object (version, segments, notes) and publishedBy already documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Publish a sealed off-chain RateSchedule") and clarifies that the hash is computed server-side. An agent can distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like pcc_schedule_get or pcc_schedule_evaluate, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by "publish" and the idempotency note (re-publishing returns alreadyPublished:true), which helps an agent understand repeat calls. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing against sibling tools such as pcc_schedule_get or publish_protocol.

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