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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and non-idempotency profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the record is created as version 1 and attributed to the calling agent, but says nothing about auth requirements (the api_key parameter carries that), visibility, or failure behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the pre-condition and the resulting version. No filler.

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 write tool with no output schema and 40% parameter coverage, the description covers the core action and the search-first step but omits what is returned after publishing, whether the record is immediately public, and how failures or duplicate titles are handled.

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 only 40%, so the description should carry more weight. It implies the 'sources' requirement via 'sourced' and frames the content subject, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for title, tags, or api_key beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 for partial compensation.

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?

Specific verb ('Publish') plus resource ('sourced information or knowledge record about La Réunion island'), and 'Creates version 1' implicitly separates it from the sibling publish_information_version. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Search for existing records first' gives a concrete pre-condition that steers the agent toward search_information before publishing. It stops short of a 5 because it never states when NOT to publish (e.g., prefer propose_revision or publish_information_version for updates).

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