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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds context about the response content (feed URL, episode counts) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, auth specifics, or edge cases. It doesn't contradict the 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Where a publisher stands right now'), and each sentence adds value: the data returned and the use cases. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read-only status tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key information: what data is returned and when to use it. It could mention the response format or error handling, but for this scope it's sufficiently complete.

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?

Both parameters (tenant_slug and token) have full descriptions in the input schema, covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable since the schema already provides sufficient guidance.

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 identifies the tool as a status overview for publishers, specifying exactly what data it returns (RSS feed URL, episode counts, audio status). It differentiates from sibling tools like publisher_episodes or publisher_stats by listing the specific fields and providing example use cases like 'what is my feed URL' and 'is anything stuck'.

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 this tool: for 'what is my feed URL', 'is anything stuck', or as the first call when a publisher asks how things are going. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select this over similar publisher tools.

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