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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the authentication requirement (OPEDD_PUB_BEARER), the 1–100 article call limit, the required fields, and that published_at defaults to now. This gives the agent substantial operational knowledge beyond the schema, though it stops short of describing responses, error behavior, or idempotency.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: one for purpose and auth, one for batching limits, one for required fields/defaults, and one for sibling differentiation. The most important operational information is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with a complex nested article object and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: auth, batch size, required fields, defaults, and when to use it. A brief note on response/result behavior would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing for correctly calling the tool.

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%, and the schema already documents each field and its constraints. The description adds value by emphasizing that only title, url, and html_body are required and that published_at defaults to now, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Push your published articles to Opedd') and clearly states the purpose: licensing them to AI buyers. It explicitly positions itself against a sibling tool ('supply-side companion to list_publisher_content'), making the tool's identity unambiguous.

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 description gives concrete usage context: use it to onboard an archive or push new content, and it names the sibling alternative (list_publisher_content). It also provides batching guidance for larger back-catalogues. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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