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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint, destructiveHint, readOnlyHint. The description adds valuable context: visibility effects on profile and reputation, that save_thesis sets visibility at creation (so this tool is for updates), and the tier restriction. It confirms idempotent. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: main purpose, visibility effects, usage context, idempotency, pairing, and tier restriction.

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?

Given high schema coverage and existence of output schema, the description covers all needed aspects: when to use, what it does, side effects (visibility and reputation), idempotency, and relationship to sibling tools. It's complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning: explains that public counts toward reputation, unlisted keeps off profile, and idempotent nature. This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 clearly states it makes a saved thesis discoverable by flipping visibility, and distinguishes between public (profile + reputation) and unlisted (direct link only). It explicitly contrasts with save_thesis (which sets visibility at creation) and unpublish_thesis (revert to private), making its unique purpose very clear.

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 explicitly says to use AFTER save_thesis to promote an existing thesis, and pairs with unpublish_thesis to revert. It also mentions a tier restriction (sp500+ sample rejected). This provides strong guidance on when to use, though it doesn't explicitly list negative cases (but idempotent nature reduces risk).

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