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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the key side effect (content becomes public), what is returned (rendered URL, raw-markdown URL, edit token), and that the token is needed for later updates or deletion. It omits auth requirements and whether publishing is reversible via that token beyond a passing mention.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage and return values. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's decision to enumerate the return values (URL, raw-markdown URL, edit token) fills exactly the gap an agent would otherwise have. Combined with the schema covering the inputs, nothing needed to call the tool correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so expiry, content, and filename are already fully documented in the schema (including the enum values and the 120,000-character limit). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Publish markdown at a public docs-md.com link') and even describes the rendering capability. It is clearly the creation tool among the sibling set (read_share, update_share, delete_share), though it never names those siblings explicitly to draw the contrast.

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 concrete use cases ('send a plan, spec, report, README or agent handoff to a person or another agent'), which gives an agent a clear trigger. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer that updating an existing link belongs to update_share.

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