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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: server-side verification of every excerpt against the public page, per-source length limits, reward economics (+100 reads / +20 for updates), a three-per-day rate limit, and explicit retry semantics ('Idempotency UUID must be reused on retries'). The idempotentHint annotation is reinforced with concrete operational guidance rather than merely restated.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with the action and its scope before the mechanics and limits. Most sentences earn their place, though the clause 'Use a separate public-source context, local screening and the SDK' is cryptic and its referents are unclear.

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-param mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the key constraints, verification behavior, rate limits, and idempotency. Minor gaps remain around what the returned card/receipt contains and how failures are surfaced, but the output schema can carry return-value 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the burden, and it largely does: it explains the sources constraint (3–5 excerpts, 25-word/220-char cap, matching minItems/maxItems/minLength/maxLength), the scope requirement ('current owner-enabled scope'), the idempotencyKey retry rule, and 'local screening' for localScreenVersion. Only 'updates' and the topic enum are left unexplained.

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 (Publish) and resource (3–5 short exact excerpts) plus a hard scope constraint (public documentation hosts in a current owner-enabled scope). An agent can distinguish this write/publish action from read-oriented siblings like get_contribution_status or search_research without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit exclusions: 'No private chat, files or freeform personal context' and 'Outside scope or uncertain: keep local for review.' This tells the agent when NOT to call. However it never names the sibling tools (e.g. prepare_contribution) that an agent should use instead, so routing is implied rather than directed.

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