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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by confirming no persistence occurs ('it saves nothing'), specifying the authorization tier required, and disclosing the conditions under which the call fails — meaningful behavioral detail not encoded anywhere else.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output, then the constraints. Every clause contributes distinct information (output artifact, permission, side-effect, failure modes) with no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still usefully names the key returned values, and it covers permissions, side effects and failure modes for what is a low-risk read-only tool. The only gap is that the preview-to-publish sequence relative to sibling tools is left implicit.

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 100%, with both offerId and partnerId fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters — for example, what a valid offer draft state looks like or whether partnerId must match the caller's workspace.

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 names a specific verb and resource — it 'builds the publishable manifest and sales kit for an offer draft' — and states the concrete return artifacts (fingerprint and revision). 'It saves nothing' explicitly separates it from the sibling save operation, and 'preview' versus 'publishing' separates it from the publish operation.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('requires an agency owner or admin') and a failure condition (unsupported package release, variant or claim), which gives real context for calling it. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over agency_offer_publish or agency_offer_save; the preview-before-publish workflow is only implied.

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