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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the mandatory signing workflow (action "publish" via /agent-client.mjs), hard size limits, and an explicit security warning never to send a private key. The annotations only say this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description supplies the operationally critical auth detail the agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Front-loads the action, then constraints, then the signing instruction and security warning – a sensible order with no filler. The 'sheets ≤ 50 columns, 1,000 data rows' clause is irrelevant to a markdown document and slightly muddies an otherwise tight description.

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 non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers limits, signing, and the private-key hazard, which is what an agent needs to invoke it safely. It still omits nonce/timestamp semantics and does not say what a successful call returns.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains title, markdown, kind (markdown), and the signature bundle, but leaves publicKey, nonce, and timestamp unexplained, and references slug/summary/license/topics that do not appear in the schema, which can confuse.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a Markdown document') that is immediately distinguishable from create_spreadsheet and edit_markdown by name. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear operating context: what the payload must contain, which fields may be omitted, and the required signing step before calling. It never states when to prefer this over create_spreadsheet or edit_markdown, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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