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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so mutation semantics are covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: no credit is consumed, the text is not rewritten, all validation problems are returned in one pass, and the response includes a private preview link. It does not warn that repeated calls create separate drafts (non-idempotent), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause and the sentence count is low relative to the amount of information conveyed. The middle section ('length, structure, links, image size and content... Send the finished release') is slightly clipped and requires a second read, but there is little filler.

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 17-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the validation return path, the preview-link output, credit behavior, and agency/company parameter conditions. Missing pieces are the draft's lifecycle after creation (how it is later edited or published) and duplicate-draft behavior.

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 account-type semantics the schema does not encode: company_name/company_website become optional for company accounts, and client_authorized only applies to agencies. That is meaningful conditional meaning layered on top of the per-field descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — saves a press release/announcement as a draft and validates it — and explicitly carves out that it neither writes the copy nor publishes the release, which separates it from publish_release. It stops short of naming or contrasting with preview_press_release, update_release, or fix_live_release, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 supplies concrete conditional guidance: company accounts may omit company name and website, while agencies must name the client company and set client_authorized to true. 'It does not publish' implicitly routes the agent to publish_release for going live. There is no explicit when-not clause or named alternative for revising an existing draft.

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