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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add gating context, which it does: entitlement rules, the permission requirement, and the fact that a 403 message names the failing condition. It does not say what happens when the product is already public (idempotency) or what a success response contains, which keeps it from a 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the eligibility gate, then the sibling routing and permission. Nothing is redundant with the name or title, and every clause carries operational information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the things an agent could otherwise get wrong: entitlement checks, the required permission, the error semantics, and the inverse tool. Only the return/result behavior of a successful publish is left implicit.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that productKey is the domain returned by add_product or list_products. The description adds only the qualifier "this exact product" in relation to grants, which is marginal beyond the schema's own documentation — baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Make one of your products public in the krawlup directory." It also names the inverse sibling (set_product_private), so an agent can distinguish the publish/unpublish pair without inspecting 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?

It states the exact preconditions for use — an active paid subscription (explicitly no trial) OR an admin-approved grant covering this exact product — and routes the opposite operation to set_product_private. The required submit permission is called out, which is the kind of gating an agent must check before invoking.

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