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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the call returns immediately while deployment takes minutes, app_status is where live URLs appear, and publishing exposes the app to anyone with the link. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then prerequisite, then async/visibility caveat. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information 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?

An output schema exists, and the description helpfully points to app_status for the resulting live URLs rather than duplicating return values. Prerequisites, async behavior, and visibility implications are all covered, leaving no material gap 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already states artifactId comes from build_app or search_artifacts. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (published/deploys) and resource (built Xenition app) with a concrete outcome (live URL). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like publish_artifact, build_app, and app_status.

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 states when to use it ('when the user wants their built app published'), the prerequisite (build_app must have finished — check app_status), and a when-not/guardrail ('only do it when the user asks'). Nothing 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.