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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantive context: the published page is read-only, link visibility depends on the public flag, and Admin rights are required. 'Always asks the user first' discloses an interactive confirmation behavior that no annotation conveys, though permanence/reversibility of publication (and how to undo it) is not stated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, followed by access rule, prerequisite, consent behavior, and return value. Slight redundancy with the schema's own `public` description keeps it from a 5.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the important context: what artifact is created, who can see it, the permission requirement, the confirmation prompt, and the returned value. Nothing essential to invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters fully. The description restates the `public` semantics ('viewable by anyone with the link unless public is false') without adding syntax or edge cases, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Publish a view') and clarifies the resulting artifact ('a read-only page (an app holding the view)'), which helps distinguish it from a mere view.update. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like app.publish or view.update, so the agent must infer which publish-style tool applies.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only page framing and the link-visibility rule, and the 'Needs Admin access' line gives a real precondition. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., view.update for non-public changes, app.publish for publishing an app).

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