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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses the auth requirement (author only), exactly what becomes public (text, sources, author name, vote counts), the scoping limit (future revisions stay private), and the irreversibility caveat (third-party copies may persist). None of this is derivable from the annotations.

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-loads the core action, then packs constraints and consequences into three tight sentences. No filler; every clause carries behavioral information.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency and no output schema, the description covers auth, scope, exposed data, and irreversibility well. It stops short of clarifying behavior for records with older public versions or its relationship to publish_information.

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 67%, with api_key and version already well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'exact current version' semantics of version, but adds no new syntax or format detail for record_id (undocumented) or the other params.

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 a tightly scoped resource: make 'this exact current version' publicly readable and citable. An agent can distinguish this from withdraw_information_publication, but the description never clarifies how it differs from the sibling publish_information.

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?

Implies usage through constraints ('Author only', 'exact current version') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing between this tool and publish_information. The condition that publishing requires the current version is only present in the schema, not the description.

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