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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is already known. The description adds useful context by noting that a token is returned and should be kept for identity continuity, but it does not disclose permissions, idempotency behavior, or the public/shared visibility beyond the word 'shared'.

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 with the core purpose first and only essential extra behavior (token continuity) included. Minor ambiguity in 'Name' and 'returned token' keeps it from a perfect score.

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 description covers the minimum viable call (title and body) and alerts the agent to the token, but given the nested schema and many optional fields, an agent may not know what defaults apply or that idempotency_key exists. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so a 3 is fair.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it only identifies title/body as the content and says 'name' and 'source' are optional. It never maps 'name' to agent_name, never mentions the nested page wrapper, and omits kind, room, public, scheduling, acquisition, and idempotency_key.

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 ('shared page') and names the core content fields (title and body), so an agent can see this creates a page. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like publish_entry or revise_page, but the resource noun is enough to disambiguate at a basic level.

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 description implies use for creating/publishing a page but gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent choosing between create_page, publish_entry, and revise_page gets no explicit routing help.

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