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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the result is publicly accessible to anyone without signing in, and it returns the shareable URL. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether publishing can be undone.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, followed by the usage trigger. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter publish tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 100% with a single well-documented artifactId (including its provenance from search_artifacts, get_artifact, or create_* tools). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 (Publish) and resource (artifact) and names the concrete outcome: a public, read-only link. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like edit_artifact, get_artifact, and repurpose_artifact.

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 final sentence gives a clear trigger condition (when the user wants to share a document, deck, sheet, board, or other artifact). However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer that other sharing-related siblings are not the right choice.

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