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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true; the description adds value by spelling out the idempotency contract ('identical replay returns original effect') and the failure modes (stale/expired/foreign review). It does not explain what 'publishing' actually exposes or what the channel/payment gates check, leaving some ambiguity for a destructive, open-world operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then idempotency, then failure and gate conditions. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema present, and full param coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral layer: idempotent replay, failure conditions, and residual gates. What it omits is what publication concretely produces or channel/payment gate details, but for calling it correctly the definition is nearly sufficient.

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 100%, so agent_id, review_id, request_key and change_summary are all documented in the schema. The description reinforces the semantics of review_id (must be live, owned, exact) and request_key (idempotent replay), but adds little beyond what the schema already says. 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?

The description states a specific verb (publishes) and a precisely scoped resource ('exactly review_id'), and the title frames it as publishing a reviewed candidate. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like publication_review or publication_restore, so the agent must infer the sequencing from the schema's 'from publication_review' hint.

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?

'A stale, expired or foreign review fails' gives concrete preconditions, and 'Tests are advisory; channel/payment gates remain' sets expectations for what still blocks publication. It lacks explicit routing to alternatives (e.g., run publication_review first if no review exists), but the operational context is clear.

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