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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: JWT auth requirement, tier-specific caps (5 rigs / 2 MCP listings / 1 agent), the Studio upgrade path, and the exact cap-refusal payload. One caveat: annotations declare readOnlyHint=false while the description describes a purely informational read, a mismatch that slightly muddies the safety signal, though the description itself never claims a write.

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 tightly packed sentences that are front-loaded with the auth requirement and core return shape. The pricing detail ($249/mo, studio_doors) is borderline but earns its place by explaining the upgrade field in the error payload.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains what is returned, the cap semantics, the tier differences, and the downstream error contract. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by defining the semantics of the returned values (used/cap/null = no cap/remaining), which is useful since no output schema exists.

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 resource (publish allowance) and spells out exactly what it returns per kind: live count (used), cap (null = no cap), and remaining. It also distinguishes itself from the publish doors (rig_publish, registry_list_server, agent_create) that it is meant to precede.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'read this first' before publishing, and names the sibling tools that will fail at the cap. The when-to-use condition (checking before a publish) is unambiguous, and the consequence of skipping it (a publish_cap error) is stated.

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