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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet read-only behavior is only implied by "Get" and never confirmed. Nothing is said about error behavior for a missing/invalid id or what the returned record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the identifying information comes first. Its brevity is clean, though it leaves too much unsaid, which is penalized under other dimensions.

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 annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description is too thin for a tool carrying a non-obvious notification_message parameter. An agent calling it correctly would need information this definition does not supply.

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 50%: notification_message is documented in the schema but the description never explains why a GET tool accepts a user-facing notification message or what the follow-up reply refers to. history_id is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 ("Get one publishing history record") plus the lookup key ("by id"), which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_publishing_history. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly for differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_publishing_history or cancel_publishing_history, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer routing purely from the singular noun.

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