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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false, and the description reinforces that ('never uploads, deploys, or goes live') without contradicting it. Beyond that it discloses pricing ($1 USDC, first 30 days), the legal check, and failure semantics: PRICE_COMPUTE_FAILED means retry with no charge, whereas a failed signed settlement requires contacting support and no retry. That is substantial behavioural context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with 'START HERE' and the read-only caveat, and nearly every clause is an actionable instruction. However, the arrow-chained workflow is dense and mixes procedural steps with edge-case error handling and URL-format trivia, which makes it harder to scan than a cleanly segmented list.

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?

With no input params and no output schema, the description must carry the full burden, and it does: entry condition, human-approval gate, sequence of sibling calls, slug/claim handling, URL format, and two distinct failure modes. An agent has everything needed to act correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly stays focused on workflow rather than arguments.

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 deliverable — a step-by-step publishing plan — and explicitly negates what it is not ('never uploads, deploys, or goes live by itself'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like upload_url, scan, inspect, and claim. An agent can tell this is the read-only entry point 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?

Explicitly says 'START HERE' and lays out the full ordered workflow (upload_url → PUT putUrl → inspect → previewUrl → preview_status → claim), names when to use an alternative ('preview_status to read remaining time, never inspect again just for the clock'), and mandates asking the human first. This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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