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

Goes well beyond the thin annotations (destructiveHint=false, title). It discloses auth model (no key required, key for ownership), retention (30-day, extended on read, data.retainedUntil), mutation semantics for passwordless vs password-protected docs, required scope for groupId, and the return fields. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers behavior in a tight sequence. It is dense but every clause (retention, shareUrl, ownership) carries information; only the 'anyone can publish' framing is mildly redundant with the surrounding sentences.

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 and no rich annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it names the return values (docCode, data.shareUrl, data.retainedUntil), explains sharing, retention, ownership, and permission requirements. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: groupId's requirement of an API key and the documents:write scope, plus the password/ownership implications that the schema only gestures at ('Readers must supply this password').

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. It is clearly distinguishable from the get/delete siblings in intent, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with postmd_update_document or the other siblings by name.

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?

Usage conditions are implied and partially spelled out (no API key required, API key for ownership, groupId for filing), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over update_document or the getters. An agent must infer the create-vs-modify boundary.

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