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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: it consumes a publish credit, contacts people outside the conversation (sends emails/phone invitations), and is a safe no-op on already-published invitations. It also warns about the external contact side effect. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and provides essential context for an agent.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the core action and its most important side effect (consumes credit, contacts guests). It then provides conditional guidance and a safety note. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical: action, consequences, when-to-use, alternative, and edge case.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (side effects, credit consumption, external contact), the description is complete. It covers the main action, prerequisites (payment_status), edge cases (already published), and the critical warning about contacting people. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be described. The only minor gap is not explicitly defining event_id, but the context makes it unambiguous.

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?

The schema has only one parameter, event_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description doesn't explicitly explain event_id, but the tool's purpose makes it obvious that event_id identifies the invitation to publish. Since there is only one parameter and the context is clear, the description compensates adequately, though it could have explicitly stated 'event_id is the invitation's ID.'

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: making a Lemonvite invitation live, consuming a publish credit, making the RSVP page accessible, and delivering invitations to guests. It distinguishes itself from siblings like lemonvite_start_checkout and lemonvite_update_invitation by specifying the publish action and its effects.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when the user explicitly wants the invitation made live and sent. It also provides a clear exclusion: if payment_status is payment_required, use lemonvite_start_checkout first. It warns against calling it merely because a draft exists, and notes that calling on an already-published invitation is a safe no-op. This is excellent guidance.

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