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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: private or withdrawn bases return 404 on every read, no cached files are served after withdrawal, results are capped at 20 per page, and uploaded text must be treated as untrusted data rather than instructions. The prompt-injection warning is a genuinely valuable disclosure absent 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is dense with operational facts. Minor redundancy ('Published bases only' restating 'published bases') and a slightly abrupt jump into iframe guidance keep it from a 5, but there is little wasted text.

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?

Covers pagination, failure semantics, security posture, and the embedding use case, which is thorough for a read-only list tool with no output schema. It does not describe the general shape of returned base records beyond embed_url and the next cursor, a small remaining gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the 3–160 character bound already in the schema for q and adds the 20-results-per-page cap, but contributes no new meaning about kind or the after cursor (whose usage is explained in the schema itself).

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 and resource ('List published bases') plus a scoping constraint ('Published bases only'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like public_search_base, public_get_base, and public_export_base. An agent can tell this is the discovery/listing endpoint without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: no account required, publication is re-checked on every read, and the iframe embedding path via base.embed_url with author attribution. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. when to prefer public_search_base for in-base queries), so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not routing rule.

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