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

With annotations only covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint), the description supplies the substantive behavior: it scans for emails, phone numbers, and secrets, explains publishing to a public registry under the user's GitHub account, and explicitly states 'Nothing is published by this tool.' That last clause reinforces rather than contradicts the readOnly annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by process and outcome. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence is dense with three separate behaviors.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the processing behavior, and the outcome, and clarifies no external side effect occurs. What the scan report actually returns is left implicit, but the annotations and schema carry the rest.

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%, so filename and code are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameters (no format hints, no relationship between code and filename), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('share an agent'), and clarifies the actual behavior: it scans the agent for personal details and explains publishing steps rather than performing a publish. It distinguishes itself by trigger condition, though it never names the overlapping sibling check_agent explicitly.

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 opening clause 'Use only when the user says they want to share an agent they built' gives an explicit, restrictive trigger that separates this from check_agent and find_agents. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it beyond that single condition.

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