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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds genuinely new context: 'immutable' tells the agent a published version cannot be edited (explaining why non-idempotent repeats create new versions), and 'readiness-checked' discloses a validation gate. It still omits auth requirements beyond the schema, failure behavior, and whether the manifest payload is validated against a schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word ('immutable', 'readiness-checked', 'one ... version') carries semantic weight.

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 mutation tool taking an unconstrained nested manifest object with no output schema, the description is thin: it never says what the manifest must contain, what is returned on success (a version identifier?), or how readiness failure surfaces. Adequate to select the tool, but not sufficient to invoke it confidently with a complex payload.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the manifest payload itself — notable because the nested object is declared with empty properties and additionalProperties: {}, meaning the schema provides no structural guidance and the description does not compensate.

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 names a specific verb ('Publish'), a specific resource ('agent manifest version'), and adds two qualifying traits (immutable, readiness-checked) that make it distinguishable from siblings like check_agent_readiness. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tool it pairs with or is not, so it lands at a clear-but-not-differentiating 4.

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?

'Readiness-checked' implies a precondition (readiness must pass before publishing), which is useful implied usage, but the description never states when to call this versus check_agent_readiness, what happens on a failed readiness check, or any exclusions. The agent must infer the workflow from the qualifier.

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