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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral context: path-omitted calls list files, path-present calls return one file's text, binary content is intentionally withheld, and 'publishing its files again rolls back' explains the write-side effect of a read tool. It also discloses the auth prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account'), which annotations cannot express.

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 action and the list-vs-read branching, with no filler sentences. The motivational line about reading before overwriting is longer than strictly necessary, but it earns its place by establishing when to reach for the tool.

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 carries the return-value burden itself and does so: lists vs single-file text, binary files excluded from output, and the auth prerequisite. Combined with the rollback note and release workflow, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a 4-parameter read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds functional meaning beyond the schema: 'Without path it lists them; with path it returns one file's text' and 'Pass release, a version from list_releases, to read an earlier release instead.' That link between the release parameter and rollback behavior is not present in the schema.

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 ('Read what is published: the files of a website, app, or agent's active release') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_releases as the source of version numbers and by tying its purpose to the publish_* family. An agent can tell it apart from get_build, get_service, or list_releases 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 a clear use context ('Read before you change something someone else built, so your publish carries their work forward') and a boundary case ('Binary files are listed and not returned'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over a sibling like get_service or get_build, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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