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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, open-world, non-read-only), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the 1-credit cost, the credit refund on failure, the fast-return vs. human-review path with reason and up-to-24-hour expectation. This is the kind of consequence information an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and gated usage, then cost and return behavior. Every clause carries information, though the final credit-refund sentence could be slightly tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining both return paths (live link within seconds, or pending review with reason and ETA). Combined with cost and precondition details, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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; the description adds meaning by tying confirm to the workflow gate ('set confirm to true' after preview approval), reinforcing the schema's stated semantics rather than merely repeating them.

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+resource ('Publishes the latest saved version of a draft press release'), including scope details (draft page changes, notifying search engines). An agent can readily distinguish this from siblings like create_release, preview_press_release, and update_release.

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?

Explicitly names the preconditions: only after the user has seen the preview and clearly said to publish, and to set confirm to true. This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs before a destructive action.

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