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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful traits: results continue counting from the original go-live date and the operation is free. It does not mention the idempotency-key retry behavior or what happens if the page is not live.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the workflow and cost note. The one-word 'Free.' is borderline but conveys a real decision-relevant fact.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the mutation safety profile. Still, for a write tool that takes over a live page, the description leaves open whether the page stays publicly live during revision and how it relates to the sibling edit_page.

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% with all three parameters (brand, page_id, idempotency_key) fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that.

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 and resource: it unlocks a live page for revision and names the follow-up actions (send or publish). This differentiates it from create_page and edit_page, which operate on non-live pages, though the exact state transition is described indirectly as 'unlock' rather than a concrete mutation.

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 second sentence implies a workflow (revise now, then send/publish when ready) and implicitly routes to send_page_to_cms or mark_page_published. However it never explicitly says when to choose this over edit_page, nor what preconditions apply (does the page have to be live already?).

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