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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the crucial consequence the annotations do not capture: the report becomes publicly listed and visible to anyone, and repeat calls return the same URL. It does not say whether public sharing can be revoked, what permissions are needed, or what happens to sensitive content in the report, which are material gaps for a privacy-affecting mutation.

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 visibility consequence is front-loaded in the 'PUBLIC:' clause, then purpose, return value, input, idempotency, and caller follow in a logical order. A couple of sentences are low-value, notably 'The page text comes from the report itself,' which is ambiguous and adds little.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return value (page URL) and covers idempotency and the public-visibility side effect. For a one-parameter tool this is nearly complete; the remaining hole is whether the operation is reversible and what authorization it requires.

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 coverage is 100% for the single reportId parameter, and the description only restates the schema ('Needs only the reportId returned by report'), adding the minor signal that no other inputs are accepted. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 ('Make a report public') and defines the resulting state precisely ('listed in the public strategy library, and anyone can see it'), plus the return value (its page URL). It also positions the tool relative to the sibling `report`, which supplies the required reportId, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

It gives clear context for use: share a report so it can be shared publicly, with the prerequisite that the reportId comes from `report`, and it notes the internal caller ('the report widget... when the visitor presses its share icon'). There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of any unshare/reverse alternative, which keeps it below 5.

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