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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond that: the new version immediately becomes the released version used by new agreements, existing versions stay immutable, and a publisher must be recorded. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. invalid publisher) but the immutability/release semantics are the key non-obvious behavior.

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 sentences, all earning their place: what it does, the immutability/release consequence, and the limitation with its workaround. The primary action is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers the mutation semantics, the required publisher identity, and the transport limitation, which is everything an agent needs to call this correctly in a crowded sibling set.

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 only 50% (the wrapper body/pathParams objects carry no field descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does by naming the markdown format of the body and reinforcing the user_email-or-user_id requirement for the publisher record, though it does not explain the pathParams id itself.

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+resource+scope: publishing a new markdown version of text custom terms. It also clarifies the domain distinction (text vs. file) that separates it from the multipart sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly gives a when-not condition: file uploads are not supported over MCP and must go through the REST multipart endpoint. It also states the publisher-identity prerequisite. It does not name the sibling tool create-custom-term-version_multipart_form_data directly, leaving the agent to infer the MCP alternative.

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