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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it does not publish (a safety trait), but fails to mention whether it creates persistent state, requires special permissions, or how idempotencyKey affects behavior. The lack of detail on side effects and return semantics is a significant gap.

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 one succinct sentence that front-loads the core action ('Prepare an exact public notice') and appends a scoping constraint and a safety clarification. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

This tool has a nested input object with many properties, no output schema, and no annotations. The description offers no explanation of required fields, expected formats, or processing details. An agent would have to guess how to populate the notice correctly, making the definition severely incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It says nothing about the 'notice' object's required fields (like campaignId, subjectId, eventId, publicSummary) or the purpose of idempotencyKey. The description provides zero value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid inputs.

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 uses a specific verb 'Prepare' with resource 'public notice' and clarifies it originates from a 'current signed public event'. The phrase 'does not publish anything' distinguishes it from publishing operations like approve_notice. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, so it falls short of top clarity.

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 only usage hint is 'This does not publish anything', implying it's not for final publication, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus approve_notice, reconcile_notice, or others. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer when preparation is appropriate.

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