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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it scans for emails, phone numbers, and secrets, and explicitly states 'Nothing is published by this tool,' which prevents the agent from assuming a side-effecting publish. It stops short of describing the output shape or any prerequisites for the GitHub publishing step.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the gating condition, then the behavior, then the critical non-effect. No filler and nothing redundant.

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, read-only tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the trigger, the internal behavior, the side-effect profile, and the fact that publishing is only explained rather than performed. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema (full Python source, filename ending in _agent.py). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource (share an agent) and then breaks the operation into concrete steps: check the agent, scan for personal details, explain how to publish. It also scopes the tool precisely with 'Use only when the user says they want to share an agent they built,' which separates it from siblings like check_agent or find_agents.

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?

There is an explicit triggering condition ('use only when the user says they want to share an agent they built'), which is stronger than implied usage. However, no alternative tool is named for adjacent cases (e.g., checking an agent without sharing), so the agent must infer the routing from sibling names.

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