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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe-read nature. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by explaining what specific state is inspected and that the tool should be consulted before publishing or building. The 'Requires project context' note also sets expectations about a precondition, going beyond the annotation.

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, front-loads the core outcome, and enumerates the key state categories without wordiness. Every sentence contributes useful information—what it checks, when to use it, and a prerequisite.

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 read-only state-check tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the information returned, and the timing of use. The 'Requires project context' hint is somewhat underspecified (it doesn't explain how to establish context), but given the sibling set_context tool and the readOnlyHint annotation, this is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described as public Ids. The description does not add any additional semantic nuance about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Per the calibration baseline, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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's purpose: checking whether a documentation version is ready to go live and whether the portal reflects current content. It enumerates the state dimensions (lifecycle, visibility, approval, edits since last build), making the tool's scope understandable. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but the focus on publish-state is distinct enough among the large sibling list.

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 clear usage context: 'Read this before publishing or building.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It also notes that project context is required, which is an important prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools such as get_publish_history.

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