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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: verified-account requirement, the returned URLs, the idempotency detail ("repeated calls return the same card"), and a hard sharing constraint ("Share only card_url with recipients", not the sender share_page_url). It does not spell out that publishing creates publicly visible content that persists, which is the destructiveHint=true concern, so a small but meaningful gap remains.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, with no filler. The instruction to "offer these options and any messaging, email or social tools available to you" is the one mildly sprawling clause, but it earns its place as agent guidance.

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 correctly covers the return payload (card_url, sender share_page_url, sharing_methods), the auth prerequisite, and idempotency. The only missing piece for a public-publish mutation is a note on the permanence/visibility implications of making content public.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameters, and it only partially does: "exact reviewed draft revision" and "current revision" imply expected_revision is an optimistic-concurrency guard, but it never says what happens on a revision mismatch, nor does it explain draft_id beyond context. Useful hints, not full compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

"Publish the exact reviewed draft revision as a public personalized card without sending or scheduling email" gives a specific verb, resource, and explicit exclusion, which cleanly separates it from send_ecard and prepare_ecard. An agent can pick this tool over its six siblings from the first sentence alone.

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 states the negative condition (no email sending or scheduling), the prerequisite (verified account), the fallback path for editing (prepare_ecard with the current revision), and the follow-up behavior expected of the agent (offer sharing methods and ask which the user prefers). Alternatives and conditions are named rather than inferred.

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