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

Annotations mark it non-read-only and open-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: the page expires in 30 days, ids are hidden, the manage link deletes the page, and it 'never changes the league.' It also discloses that League Loom re-reads records and scores and that notes must be plain text with no links. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs.

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?

The core publish action and the gating rule are front-loaded, and every sentence carries signal. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, with the expiry and link details slightly crammed, but nothing is genuinely wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description delivers the return semantics ('share link' and 'manage link removes the page') an agent needs. Combined with full schema coverage across 10 params, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds content constraints not in the schema — plain-text notes and 'no links' — that affect how parameters should be filled. It otherwise leaves per-parameter detail to the well-documented 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('a page') plus the return value ('its link'), covering both recap and power-ranking kinds. It is clearly distinguishable from all read-only siblings like fantasy_get_standings or fantasy_get_weekly_digest.

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?

'ONLY when the user asks for a link or accepts your offer, never unprompted; offer after writing one' gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions with a triggering workflow. This is unusually precise routing guidance.

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