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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context those fields cannot convey: this publishes the WHOLE document including a teammate's unpublished work, and it recommends verifying with get-document first. It stops short of describing the response or whether publishing can be undone, so it doesn't reach 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and destinations, then the critical side-effect warning. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With a single fully-documented parameter, destructive/idempotency annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, where it publishes, the risk of unpublished work, and the pre-check step.

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% and the single parameter's description already says it's the document target found via list-documents. The description reinforces that the whole document is affected but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb (publish) and resource (document) and goes further to enumerate the destinations — whole team, dotreq sync, requirement tools — which distinguishes it from siblings like edit-document, get-document, and create-document. An agent can identify exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'call get-document first and check what it reports as unpublished,' naming the alternative tool and the condition that motivates it. The warning about carrying unpublished work tells the agent when to be cautious, not just how to call it.

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