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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the async contract ('returns right away; deploying takes a few minutes, and app_status reports the live URLs') and a meaningful side effect not covered by any annotation: publishing makes the app reachable by anyone with the link. It doesn't restate idempotency or read-only status, which the annotations already 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: trigger, prerequisite plus async behavior, and the exposure caveat. The trigger is front-loaded and there is 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still usefully points to app_status for live URLs. For a one-parameter async action with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single artifactId parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description only adds that the id originates from build_app (with app_status as a status check), which is marginal additional meaning beyond the schema's own 'from build_app (or search_artifacts)' note.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('published to a live URL', 'Deploys the app from build_app') and differentiates from siblings by tying the artifact to build_app/app_status and separating deployment from the publish_artifact family. An agent can distinguish it from edit_app, create_app, and app_status 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants their built Xenition app published'), a precondition ('it must have finished building — check app_status'), and an explicit restriction ('only do it when the user asks'). The when/when-not conditions are spelled out rather than implied.

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