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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly false, destructive false, openWorld true). The description goes well beyond them: the page expires in 48 hours, the response includes a URL and a personal claimUrl, and opening that link while signed in makes the page permanent. That is exactly the lifecycle and side-effect context an agent needs for a publish operation.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: capability, expiry constraint, and return/claim semantics. The scope qualifier is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Output schema exists so return shape needn't be re-explained, yet the description adds the non-obvious claimUrl semantics that the schema cannot convey. Combined with the expiry behavior, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so slug, files, and siteName are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format details for them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 verb and resource (publish a public web page) plus the defining scope qualifier: no account or API key. This clearly separates it from siblings like publish_page and publish_document, which are not marked anonymous.

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 gives a clear selecting condition ('without an account or API key') that tells the agent when this tool applies versus the authenticated publish tools. It does not explicitly name publish_page/publish_document as the alternative, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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