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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by revealing critical behavioral details: the article is 'world-readable the moment this returns' (timing of side effect), it's explicitly 'not idempotent, so calling twice publishes twice' (confirming the idempotentHint:false annotation with practical context), and it 'consumes one publish from the account's plan quota; the response warns when the allowance is nearly spent.' It also reveals the vision visibility semantics and the need for an API key. This enriches the spartan annotation data.

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?

Four concise, self-contained sentences. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds exclusions/directives, then clarifies non-obvious behavioral facts (non-idempotent, quota), and finishes with return value details. Every clause pulls its weight; the structure is a model of clarity.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, yet the description covers the critical gaps: side effects (what gets published), auth requirements (API key), resource consumption (quota), warning behavior, and the return value shape with 'public url and editor_url.' The only thing left to the schema is parameter format validation.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is already 3 because the schema documents each parameter. The description adds a bit of semantic linkage beyond what the schema states: the interaction between schedule_at and the immediate-world-readable behavior ('without schedule_at the article is world-readable... at the visibility you choose'). It doesn't add new parameter syntax, but the linkage of the scheduling/visibility/readiness concepts provides extra value, so a 4 is justified.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Create a new article and make it live immediately, or schedule it for a future time.' It clearly differentiates the publish action with immediate vs. scheduled behavior and the mention of sibling tools (create_draft, update_article) places this tool within its family. The rest of the description enriches with publishing specifics.

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?

Explicit alternatives are given: 'If the piece is not ready, use create_draft instead and publish later' and 'use update_article to change one that exists.' This is the gold standard for guidance on when NOT to use the tool, disambiguating it from siblings in the same domain.

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