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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: the action takes effect immediately, has no review queue, returns public_url, and the published app is deliberately not search-engine indexed. These details are not inferable from the schema or annotations and help the agent anticipate side effects.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized, front-loading the core action and then covering timing, visibility modes, return value, SEO caveat, and usage trigger. A few phrases like 'next to AI Visibility 360 and the World Bank and FRED data surfaces' are illustrative but not essential, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it explains when to use it, what each visibility mode does, what it returns, the immediate effect, the non-indexing caveat, and how to reverse it. No critical behavioral information is missing.

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?

The schema covers both parameters fully, but the description adds valuable semantics for the visibility enum by explaining what each value means in practice: public gives a store tile plus URL, unlisted gives link-only access. The app_id parameter is not further enriched, so this is strong but not perfect.

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 clearly states the action: 'Publish an app YOU own,' with a specific verb and resource. It goes further to distinguish publishing modes (public vs unlisted) and explicitly names the reversal sibling, unpublish_app, so an agent can separate it from publish_chart and other app-related tools.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use it when the user says the app is ready to share.' It also explains that unpublish_app reverses the action, and the public/unlisted distinction provides decision guidance for different sharing intents.

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