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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true): server-side verification of every excerpt against the public page, a three-per-day rate limit, reward economics (+100 reads new, +20 update), and the requirement to reuse the idempotency UUID on retries. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then constraints and economics, with no filler sentences. Some fragments ('Use a separate public-source context, local screening and the SDK') and the telegraphic reward notation are dense enough to risk misreading, which keeps it below a 5.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, sources constraints, idempotency, rate limits, and rejection routing. It stops short of saying what the tool returns (card ID, verification result) and does not clarify topic or localScreenVersion semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for sources (3–5 excerpts, ≤25 words / 220 chars) and idempotencyKey (reuse UUID on retries). But it never explains the topic enum values, the localScreenVersion constant, or the 'updates' field, leaving several required parameters semantically opaque.

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 (publish knowledge card excerpts) plus the exact scope constraint (public documentation hosts, owner-enabled scope). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like prepare_contribution or report_reuse, none of which publish sourced cards.

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 a clear routing condition: outside scope or uncertain, keep local for review, and it prescribes preparing a public-source context with local screening. It does not, however, name or defer to a sibling tool (e.g., prepare_contribution) for the pre-publication step, leaving the alternative implicit.

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