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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'publicly shareable' and states it proxies to a backend endpoint, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a document is created or overwritten), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the lifespan of the published document. The endpoint line adds no behavioral value.

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 description is only two sentences, and the first sentence is directly useful. The second sentence, 'Proxies to backend endpoint: POST /api/tools/docs/publish-markdown/', is an implementation detail that is unlikely to help an agent decide to use the tool, but it is not bloated. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded, though the second sentence could be removed.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship to sibling tools, the consequences of publishing, or what happens to the document after publishing. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description misses critical usage context and behavioral details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints that 'markdown' is the content to publish, but says nothing about the 'title' or 'expires_hours' parameters. The schema provides names and types, but the description adds little semantic context, especially for optional parameters that affect behavior.

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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Publish markdown as a publicly shareable AutEng document.' The verb 'publish' is specific, the resource (markdown) is identified, and the outcome (publicly shareable document) is described. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auteng_docs_create or auteng_docs_share, which likely create or share existing documents.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only implicit usage is that it is for publishing markdown, but that is not enough to guide an agent in choosing between this and auteng_docs_create or auteng_docs_share.

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