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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is published by this tool' and adds non-obvious behavior — that it scans the supplied code for emails, phone numbers, and secrets. It does not describe output format, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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, no filler, and the triggering condition is front-loaded so the agent sees the routing rule first. The remaining sentences each add distinct information (scan behavior, publishing path, safety guarantee).

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 read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not do ('nothing is published'), and what the user gets back (instructions for publishing under their own GitHub account). Adequate, though it never states the response shape explicitly.

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% for both parameters (filename, code), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 concrete flow: validate the agent, scan it for personal details (emails, phone numbers, secrets), then explain publishing to the RAR registry. This is distinguishable from siblings like find_agents or get_agent_code. However, the opening clause 'Checks the agent' overlaps with the sibling check_agent without naming it, so the boundary between the two tools is only implicit.

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 gating condition: 'Use only when the user says they want to share an agent they built.' The word 'only' functions as a when-not constraint, and the rest of the description clarifies the scope of the flow. An agent knows precisely when to select this tool rather than its siblings.

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