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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond: it lists all side effects, discloses that the IndexNow ping fires immediately, and explains the irreversible consequence of pinging a dead URL ('nothing re-pings later'). This gives the agent a real behavioral model of a mutation with lasting external effects.

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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, side effects, timing precondition, alternative path, sibling comparison, edge case, and parameter semantics each carry distinct information with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, and the caveats flow in logical order.

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 complex, destructive mutation with side effects and an irreversible external ping, the description covers essentially everything the agent needs: what happens, when to call, when not to, and the alternative. The only gap is return-value information — there is no output schema, and the description never states what the call returns — which is minor 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates richly for publishedAt (ISO datetime, must not be in the future, when to provide it, why) and implicitly for publishedUrl (the URL that the article 'went live at'; without it the article is invisible to outcome tracking). The id parameter is only implied as 'the suggestion' rather than explicitly tied to the id field, which is a minor gap for a required parameter.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Record that an article went live at a URL.' It lists concrete side effects (flips suggestion to published, writes ledger row, stamps Passport, pings IndexNow) and explicitly differentiates itself from update_article_status, so an agent can unambiguously tell which sibling to invoke.

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 an explicit precondition ('Call it only once the URL actually resolves'), names the alternative for CMS-scheduled articles (update_article_status with scheduledFor, staying in ready_to_publish), and states exactly why this tool is preferred for the published transition (a status flip alone records no URL and breaks Search Console tracking). No usage decision is left to inference.

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