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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description doesn't need to reiterate those. It adds minor behavioral context ('paragraphs are preserved') and content constraints ('exclude secrets and source dumps'), but it doesn't disclose side effects such as visibility to others, whether the report can be edited/deleted, or what happens on duplicate idempotency keys. Overall, it adds only limited behavior beyond what the schema and annotations already provide.

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 description is only two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place—one states what the tool does, the other states required content attributes and constraints. This is an ideal size for a tool of this complexity.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete: it doesn't explain what the tool returns, how idempotencyKey should be generated, or the purpose of sessionId/executionId. It does cover the essential content fields and mentions preservation of paragraphs, which provides a minimum viable context. Overall, it is adequate but has clear gaps regarding output and optional parameters.

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 very low (11%), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the meaning of the main content parameters ('distinct title, summary, and prose body') and adds useful guidance on formatting ('paragraphs are preserved'). However, it completely ignores other parameters like 'projectId', 'idempotencyKey', 'outcome', and 'attachments', leaving their semantics to inference from names rather than explicit explanation.

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 action ('Publish') and resource ('Reports') and adds distinctive content requirements ('authored narrative report', 'distinct title, summary, and prose body'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_report_bug' (reporting a bug) and 'queue_report' (queuing a report) by focusing on publishing manually authored narratives.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have an authored narrative report to publish. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools such as 'queue_report' or 'update_report'. The usage is implied rather than explicitly part of a decision tree.

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