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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds critical behavioral details beyond these: the call is synchronous, costs 15c per call, skips GENERATED drafts due to a human approval gate, and reports skip counts. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the synchronous nature, then covers the key behavior (status filtering), the rationale, the response interpretation, and the cost. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all essential context for an agent to call the tool correctly: the status gate, the skip behavior, cost, and diagnostic guidance. No significant gaps for a single-parameter tool with a well-documented schema.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (projectId), including its exact source (seo_project_list) and the caution against using slug/display name. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter itself, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: publishing approved pages ('takes approved pages live'). It distinguishes itself from content generation by explicitly noting that GENERATED drafts are skipped, which differentiates it from sibling seo_content_generate. The verb 'takes' is slightly informal but the resource and action are unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit conditions for use: only rows in REVIEWED status are published, and GENERATED drafts are skipped. It also explains how to interpret the response (if publishedCount is 0 and skippedNeedsReview is high, approval is needed first). This gives clear guidance on when to call the tool and what to expect.

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