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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare it is not read-only and not destructive), the description discloses significant behavioral traits: the new version immediately becomes the default for new agreements while existing agreements keep their pinned version, and republishing an identical definition is a no-op returning the current version. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious semantics an agent needs to avoid redundant calls.

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 tight sentences with the core action and its effect front-loaded, then the no-op edge case, then the publisher requirement. No redundant or filler content, and each sentence contributes distinct 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers everything an agent requires: what it does, the versioning consequence, the idempotent no-op case, and the identity requirement. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 50% and the schema already documents the id, definition, user_email and user_id parameters in detail. The description's 'Requires user_email or user_id to record the publisher' repeats what the schema already states, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 precise verb+resource combination ('Publish a new YAML version of a custom template'), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like update-custom-template and create-custom-template. An agent can immediately tell this creates a new version rather than editing or creating the template itself.

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 implies usage through its versioning semantics but never explicitly states when to reach for this versus update-custom-template or create-custom-template. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer the trigger condition from the name alone.

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