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

Annotations indicate a non-destructive write operation. The description adds plan-dependent behavior, branding options, and the ability to keep Dochost branding (noBranding parameter). It explains that link lifetime, password, custom slug, and branding follow account entitlements, which is useful contextual info.

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?

Description is two sentences. First sentence states the core purpose concisely. Second sentence adds important behavioral details. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, required input (body), format, and plan-specific behaviors. It mentions the output ('shareable URL') but does not detail the response structure; however, the presence of an output schema compensates. Minor gaps include no mention of the 'public' parameter, but overall it is quite complete.

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 has 0% coverage, but description informally explains most parameters: format ('Markdown or HTML'), password protection (password), custom slug (customSlug), and branding (noBranding). It does not explicitly mention the 'public' parameter, but the context of password protection implies it. Overall, the description adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Publish' and resource 'dochost page' and distinguishes from sibling tools which are CRUD and account management. It also specifies content types (Markdown or HTML).

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?

While not explicitly listing alternatives, the description makes it obvious that this tool is for creating new published pages, distinct from siblings like update_page or delete_page. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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