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

Goes beyond annotations (idempotentHint/readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing that publishing updates the existing link if one exists, auto-generates an og:image cover, and that previews expire in 7 days. Doesn't mention required permissions or rate limits, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; each sentence carries distinct information (output, idempotent update, dryRun workflow, og:image). Slightly run-on but efficient.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden by specifying the URL, embed code, and preview.url. Combined with the idempotency and cover-generation notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 67%; the description supplies meaning for dryRun (validation + preview.url) that the schema leaves undocumented, and notes title defaults to the tour name (which the schema also states). It adds genuine value over structured fields.

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+resource: publishes the tour to a permanent link and returns the URL and embed code. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., unpublish) by naming the exact artifact produced (guiaflow.pro/p/… link).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call with dryRun:true to validate and show a 7-day preview before publishing, which is a clear recommended workflow. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to publish or a named alternative (e.g., unpublish), so it falls short of 5.

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