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

Annotations carry almost nothing (only destructiveHint=false), so the description does the heavy lifting and does it well: 30-day retention extending on each read, that passwordless documents can be updated/deleted by anyone, that password-protected ones need the password or owner API key, and the documents:write scope requirement. These are consequential side effects an agent must know before publishing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences each carry distinct operational facts (return fields, retention, permissions, docCode convention). It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every clause earns its place.

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 supplies the return contract (docCode, data.shareUrl, data.retainedUntil) and explains retention, ownership, and the docCode-in-source-file convention. An agent has everything needed to publish and later re-locate the document.

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%, so the baseline is 3 — each parameter is already documented in the schema, including title defaults, fileName extension requirement, password behavior, and viewerStyle fallback. The description mostly reinforces permission semantics already present in the schema (groupId needs an API key) rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource — 'Publish Markdown as a PostMD web page' — which is unambiguous and cleanly separable from the sibling get/update/delete operations. An agent can identify the create action without opening the schema.

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 conditions: no API key needed for anonymous publishing, API key makes the document belong to a member, and groupId files it into a group (needing documents:write). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as postmd_update_document for later edits, but the auth/no-auth and ownership branches give strong context.

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