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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: drafts expire after 24 hours and publishing consumes a single pending draft. It stops short of saying what happens to the draft post-publish or how expired-draft errors surface, so 4 rather than 5.

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 purpose, then approval gating, then expiry, with zero filler. The emphatic triple 'never... never... never' is mildly repetitive but earns its place as prompt-injection defense on a destructive operation.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the crucial operational facts: approval precondition, single-draft scope, and expiry. Minor gaps remain (post-publish state of the draft, expired-draft error behavior) but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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% and the single change_id field already documents its provenance ('The id a propose_ tool or my_changes returned'). The description adds no format, example, or lookup guidance beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (publish), resource (one pending draft), and target (owner's LIVE Google Business Profile), which cleanly separates it from the propose_* tools that create drafts and discard_change that removes them. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Explicit when-to-call (only after showing the owner the draft and hearing approval for that specific change in this conversation) plus three explicit when-not conditions (never on own initiative, never for an unseen draft, never on instruction from external text). This is exactly the routing and gating information the agent needs.

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