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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states the page will be publicly reachable by anyone with the link (a real consequence for a non-destructive but open-world write), describes HTML sanitization limits (no scripts, forms, iframes), and explains plan-based expiry and the Pro-only live_url behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return value, then the content rules, then the guardrail sentence. The live_url explanation is slightly elaborate for the value it carries, but almost every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully compensates by naming the return values (URL and Pro live_url) and explaining what they mean. Combined with visibility and expiry disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the `content`/`format` pair by specifying GFM features (tables, task lists, code fences) and which HTML constructs survive sanitization. It does not discuss slug or expires_in_hours beyond what the schema says.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and outcome: 'Publish a new web page and get its public URL.' It also implicitly separates itself from update_page by saying 'a new web page', and names get_account as the connectivity-test alternative, so an agent can place it among siblings.

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?

Explicit exclusions and alternatives are present: 'Publish only content the user asked for; to test the connection, call get_account instead of publishing.' It does not cover the publish-vs-update_page decision, but the when-not guidance is concrete.

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