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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description only needs to add context. It does add meaningful behavior: historical review-only proposals are withheld and replaced with an intent-review task, and no generation, publishing, or provider requests occur.

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 short and front-loads the main subject in the first sentence. Some sentences are terse and jargon-heavy, but there is no obvious 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?

This tool has seven parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, so the description carries more burden. It gives useful read-only behavioral context but omits what the return shape looks like and how most filters or pagination behave.

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 description coverage is only 29%, and the description compensates for very little. It adds some meaning for the URL parameter ('mapped URL' and 'eligible full artifact') but says nothing about area, days, limit, offset, or direction, leaving most filters undocumented in both places.

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 identifies a specific resource: saved source-grounded copy changes plus current eligibility, and the surrounding text distinguishes it from generation/publishing work. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name for the read action, but an agent can still infer the purpose.

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 only usage-like instruction is 'Add a mapped URL for an eligible full artifact,' which is a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use rule. It does not explain when to choose this over prepare_page_changes, read_preparation_action, or other sibling tools.

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