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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds valuable context: it creates a SendPage link, previews in messaging apps, supports export formats, and returns an edit token. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, usage context, and output/behavior. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly states what is returned (share link and edit token). It also covers preview and export behavior. It could be more precise about response structure, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

All three parameters have full schema descriptions, so the description doesn't need to detail each parameter. It reinforces that 'html' must be the complete document and mentions title fallback behavior, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool publishes an HTML document to SendPage and returns a shareable link. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document, update_document, and list_documents.

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 explicitly says 'Use this whenever the user has an HTML document and wants to send, share, or deliver it to someone' and frames it as the 'delivery step after the document is written.' This provides strong when-to-use guidance, but it does not name a specific alternative tool for non-delivery scenarios.

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