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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: the request does not publish anything, publication requires the merchant's own click, and the call returns a publish link — context annotations alone could not convey. It stops short of saying how or whether the merchant is notified, or whether the request can be withdrawn.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical caveat. Every clause earns its place — nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only request tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ambiguity (that it does not itself publish) and mentions the returned publish link. The only notable gap is the unexplained draft_id source, which an agent must infer from sibling tools.

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%: the 'store' parameter is well documented in the schema, but 'draft_id' has no description anywhere and the tool description never explains where to obtain it (presumably list_drafts or create_draft). At this coverage level the description should have compensated and does not, so it adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Ask the merchant to publish a draft') and immediately clarifies the boundary: the tool requests rather than performs publication. That distinguishes it cleanly from preview_draft, create_draft, and edit_draft without opening their schemas.

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 makes the usage context clear — you call this when you want merchant action on a finished draft rather than publishing yourself. It gives no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer preview_draft first, or request_undo after), so guidance is clear but incomplete.

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