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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it takes no arguments, returns fixed content, does not publish anything, and rejects any input field with JSON-RPC -32602. This fully discloses behavior beyond what the annotations provide.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first gives the use case, the second defines the fixed output and no-argument contract, and the third defines the failure mode. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 no-argument, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the use context, the output composition, the input constraint, and the error behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the schema already documents that an empty object must be passed. The description adds practical value by warning that any attempted input field produces Invalid params, which is exactly the kind of guidance an agent benefits from.

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 names a specific use ('подготовить публикацию о ДокиДепо') and a specific deliverable: a fixed set of text, links, cover, contact, and privacy boundaries. It also clearly distinguishes itself from a publishing or content-accepting tool by stating it does not publish material and rejects free input.

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 states when to use the tool: when a publication needs to be prepared without inventing facts or links. It also gives clear when-not conditions: not for publishing, not for accepting free text, URLs, files, or audience data. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the exclusions are strong enough to prevent misrouting.

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