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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the actual consequence of the mutation — anonymous visibility of check names, statuses, and optionally incident history — plus the admin authorization requirement and the immutable Overview restriction. The idempotency claim in the description is consistent with idempotentHint=true rather than merely restating it.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, then constraints, then return shape. The trailing sentence enumerating public_url, public_wallboard_url, and domain_url largely duplicates an output schema, so it is the one part that doesn't fully earn 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?

For a single-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what changes, who may do it, what becomes exposed, what is idempotent, what is disallowed, and what comes back. No material gap remains.

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?

The single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description only needs to add constraints. It does add one: the Overview dashboard cannot be published, which tells the agent a valid-format id can still be rejected. It adds no further syntax detail, which is acceptable at 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+end state: "Make a custom dashboard public as a status page," and immediately defines what public means (link-accessible check names, statuses, incident history). This is clearly distinct from update_dashboard or unpublish_dashboard, which an agent can rule out from the described outcome alone.

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 states real preconditions and exclusions: only account admins can publish, Overview can't be published, and re-publishing an already public dashboard is a no-op. What's missing is an explicit pointer to the sibling that reverses this (unpublish_dashboard), so the agent must infer the undo path.

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