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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: a link is returned, invalid boards are rejected with problems instead of publishing, and narration only activates when narration_language is supplied. The instruction to pass the link through verbatim hints that the URL is opaque or signed. It does not address what happens on a second publish of the same board, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 action and its return value are front-loaded, and the prerequisite and failure case follow immediately. The narration sentence restates the same fact twice ('the :::say blocks are voiced, so that the presentation plays with a voice'), which is the only wasted phrasing in an otherwise tight definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it does: a link for the browser, or the board's problems on failure. For a five-parameter publish tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds the cross-parameter effect (narration_language voices the :::say blocks) but leaves autoplay, narration_speed, and narration_voice entirely to the schema rather than reinforcing defaults or interactions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Publishes a board') and goes further by naming the observable outcome: it returns a link that opens in the user's browser. Naming check_board as the prerequisite action separates it from the sibling validation tool, so an agent can tell which of the six siblings to call.

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?

There is an explicit ordering rule ('Call check_board first') and a stated failure mode ('A board with errors is not published: the problems come back instead'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It never contrasts publishing against add_to_board or read_board, so an agent must infer when to publish versus incrementally modify an existing board.

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