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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: the required scope 'demos:read', the hard prerequisite that the demo be published, the exclusion of draft changes/presenter notes/private sources, and locale fallback to source language. It stops short of describing failure behavior when the demo is unpublished or the locale is unsupported.

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, then locale, then plan/prerequisite/permission — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The single long sentence with stacked parentheticals is dense and could be split for faster scanning, but every clause carries information.

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 output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so concretely (Markdown body, step pictures, outline structure with ids/numbers/titles/URLs/branching). Permissions, plan scope, prerequisite and locale behavior are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds one genuinely new fact the schema lacks: the locale parameter defaults to the demo's source language. It also restates that only published languages are accepted, which the schema already says, so the gain is modest rather than comprehensive.

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 states a specific resource (a published demo rendered as a step-by-step guide) and precisely defines the output: Markdown plus per-step pictures plus an outline of sections/items with step ids, numbers, titles, picture URLs and branching choices. The phrase 'exactly as viewers get it (the published version: no draft changes, presenter notes or private sources)' implicitly separates it from get_demo, which serves the editable draft view.

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 names the prerequisite tool explicitly ('the demo must be published (publish_demo)') and states plan availability ('Every plan'), plus the locale fallback rule. What it does not do is explicitly route the agent to get_demo for the draft/editorial view, so the alternative is only implied rather than named.

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