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

With only negative boolean annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses the signed envelope, node-keyed isolation, expired-act skipping, dead-lettering, and response shape. It even explains why cross-node collection is structurally impossible, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the return shape is useful, but the middle repeats the signature/auth point and the unexplained 'CO 486' adds noise. The incorrect empty-arguments example further weakens the structure.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description supplies the response format, auth method, queue-scoping rule, and expiration/dead-letter behavior. The main gaps are the misleading example and the lack of explicit one-time removal or retry semantics, though idempotentHint=false partially covers that.

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?

The schema already describes all six parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description's closing example — 'call federation_node_drain_queue with arguments {}' — directly contradicts the five required parameters. This misleading example undermines correct invocation and no additional parameter semantics are provided.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Collect brokered acts queued for your node') and further sharpens scope with 'drains ONLY its own queue'. This clearly communicates the operation and differentiates it from sibling federation tools without ambiguity.

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 clear operational context: 'Poll-shaped: the node collects on its own initiative' and 'No operator token; the signature is the auth' indicate who should call it and when. It does not explicitly name an alternative for when not to use it, but strongly excludes cross-node and operator-driven use.

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