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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds the crucial economics: 1 mint deducted per page, charged once, free when already minted or on Pro, and the requirement of an API key. The only real gap is that it says nothing about what the call returns on success versus failure.

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?

The cost-and-effect statement is front-loaded and the spend warning closes the paragraph, which is good ordering. It runs long, though: the Peppermint pack pricing and billing URL are useful but could be trimmed to a pointer, and the sentence count is higher than needed for one parameter.

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 single-parameter, non-idempotent-in-cost mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (API key), cost, idempotency behavior, side effects, and alternatives (update_page, Pro account). It stops short of describing the response payload, which an agent would need to confirm success.

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?

The single page_id parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage, sourced from publish_page/list_pages). The description adds only indirect meaning via 'once per page', which implies page_id must reference an unminted page; there is no added syntax or format guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies given complete schema coverage.

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 ('Make one page permanent with one mint') and enumerates the concrete effects: never expires, badge removed, Pro limits, 2 MB, custom slug via update_page, indexable, no longer counted toward the live-page limit. It also names a sibling (update_page) for the slug workflow, so the agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools.

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?

Gives an explicit gate: 'only call it when the user asked for the page to stay up', because it spends a paid credit. It also spells out the no-op/no-charge cases (already minted, account on Pro), which prevents unnecessary spend.

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