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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real value beyond them: the preview is short-lived, it never publishes, and the result carries an authorizationMode gate that determines whether immediate confirmation is allowed. It does not spell out expiry timing or error/consent failure 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the key safety constraint, then the decision rule for acting on the result. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still flags the pivotal result field (authorizationMode) and the confirm handoff. The main completeness gap is the undocumented parameter set, which is a parameter-level rather than purpose-level deficiency.

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 0% across 7 parameters (4 required), and the description explains none of them — not requestId, kind, the version/revision identifiers, nor the two booleans whose default/impact is non-obvious. It only references authorizationMode, which is a result field, not an input. For a low-coverage schema the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Create an exact, short-lived preview for publishing a confirmed profile capability or confirmed Need.' The scope (confirmed capability/Need) and the crucial negative constraint ('This tool never publishes') make it distinguishable from the confirm siblings in spirit, though it never names fitmeet_publication_confirm directly.

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 clear context: use it only for a *confirmed* profile capability or Need, and tells the agent how to act on the result (AUTOMATIC permits immediate confirm; otherwise show preview and request confirmation). No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the prepare→confirm flow is well implied.

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