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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds context about the kind of state information returned and notes it 'Requires project context,' implying a prerequisite. No contradiction, but it doesn't disclose potential rate limits or return format beyond what the description implies.

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 two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and minimal fluff. It is efficient and structured, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 tool with two straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it checks, when to use it, and a prerequisite (project context). No significant information is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with both parameters described as public IDs. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, and the parameter names are self-explanatory. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 reports whether a documentation version is ready to go live and whether the portal shows current content, listing specific aspects (lifecycle, visibility, approval, edits since last build). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_publish_history or get_doc_page, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

The description gives a direct usage hint: 'Read this before publishing or building,' which tells the agent when to invoke it. It doesn't provide exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for a get-style tool.

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