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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the tool's behavior: detailed status includes overall state (pending/running/completed/failed), current phase, per-step progress, and failure reason. It also clarifies the dual mode (detail vs. list) beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise explanations of both invocation modes and the usage context. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description is complete. It explains both modes, the kind of data returned (state, phase, progress, failure reason), and when to use it. No critical gaps.

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%, and the schema already explains the hashid parameter (optional, used for detailed status, omit for listing recent runs). The tool description essentially restates this, adding no new parameter meaning beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the status of your listing publishes.' It specifies two modes (with and without a hashid) and what each mode returns. This distinguishes it from siblings like publish_listing and get_listing.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to track a publish_listing call to completion.' It names the related sibling tool (publish_listing) and indicates the intended scenario, though it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives.

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