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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the default layout transformation (#/## headings become quote headings, thin rules, photo placement), explicitly states 'Text never changes,' and clarifies that the server never chooses a form for the user. This enriches the agent's mental model of the tool's side-effect-free behavior.

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 long but dense and purposeful. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the default layout behavior, the preview-then-publish workflow, and the alternative forms workflow. While it could be tightened into bullet points, every sentence contributes useful operational detail rather than 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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key invocation semantics, the two main usage modes, and the return-shape difference (layouts[] vs one layout). It also describes what each preset layout result contains. It does not formally specify the output object, but it gives enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret results 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by tying parameters to the publishing workflow: content and mediaIds should be the same ones used for publish, workspaceId is optional once decided ('do not ask the person again'), and forms: 'all' returns layouts[] with name, usage note, and summary. These semantics go beyond the literal schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Naver Blog only' and 'Shows how publish will lay the body out before anything goes out,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this preview tool from the sibling publish tool by framing it as the pre-publication layout check.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Call this with the same content and mediaIds you will publish, show the person the result if they care about structure, then publish' or alternatively pass options.naver_blog.layout: 'as-is'. It also explains the forms branch ('To let the person choose a form, pass forms: all') and ends with 'The server never picks for you,' making the human-in-the-loop decision explicit.

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