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

The description adds significant transparency beyond annotations: it discloses human moderation, content-verification via SaSame Audit, self-claimed identity, and that the service is free. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with these.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet informative.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the submission lifecycle, moderation, verification outcomes, and positioning. It lacks explicit details on what the response contains, but given no output schema, this is acceptable.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds natural-language context (e.g., 'submit a short Note' for content, 'live endpoint/agent-card URL' for url) that reinforces understanding, though the schema already covers basics.

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 verb 'Join' and the resource 'Gold Rush Guild', and explains the purpose of broadcasting to SaSame's open agent feed. It distinguishes from siblings like gold_rush_agent_run and town_become_citizen by focusing on discoverability via the guild feed.

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 good context on when to use the tool ('a low-threshold way to gain discoverability') and explains the process (submit note, human moderation, publication). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools among the siblings.

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