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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important non-obvious behavior: the tool keeps running in the tenant's own sandbox with its own secrets, and callers reach it via namespace.name. However, it omits reversibility, required permissions, and idempotency, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 core action and visibility options, then the execution/naming behavior. No wasted words, though it packs two distinct ideas without clear separation.

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 sharing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts (where the tool runs, how it is addressed, the two modes). Missing only reversibility and permission prerequisites, which are minor given the unshare sibling exists.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by explaining what visibility values accomplish (share with everyone vs. a named group) and reinforcing the group requirement. This goes beyond the terse '"public" or "group"' schema text.

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 (share) and resource (a tenant's published tool), plus the two visibility modes. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like host.tool_publish and host.tool_unshare by naming the exact scope and target audience.

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?

Explains the two visibility modes and the group prerequisite, which implies usage, but never states when to choose this over host.tool_publish or host.registry_publish. No explicit when-not guidance or exclusion criteria are given.

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