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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned content (contract, authoring rules, less common publishes, icon rule), but says nothing about behavior beyond that — no auth requirements, no caching, no mention of the unusual idempotentHint=false. Adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage trigger, with no filler. The second sentence is a fragment ('For when you are about to...') that reads slightly awkwardly, keeping it off a 5.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema (which carries the return-shape burden), the description covers purpose, content scope, and a usage trigger. Nothing critical is missing, though it could have named the sibling it complements.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter meaning is missing or misstated.

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 ('Returns') and concrete resources (the Cloche deploy contract, authoring rules, the icon rule), which is well beyond a restatement of the title. It is implicitly distinguishable from the sibling 'publish' since it returns instructions rather than performing a publish, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'For when you are about to publish a new app' gives a clear triggering context that an agent can act on, and it implicitly routes away from the sibling 'publish' tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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