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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add the useful scope detail that the response covers both the run and its posts, but it says nothing about behavior for an unknown runId or how stale the status data may be.

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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented required parameter and no output schema.

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 output schema, the description partially covers return content by stating it is a status summary of the run plus its posts, but it does not describe the status values or the shape of the returned data. Combined with the undocumented runId, the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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 0%, so the schema documents nothing about runId, and the description only hints that the string identifies 'a publishing run'. It gives no format, origin, or example for the required parameter, leaving the agent to guess where runId comes from.

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 ('Get') and resource ('status summary of a publishing run and its posts'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from list_posts, get_post, or post_attempts. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus post_attempts, get_post, or retry_post, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid completed or in-flight run. Usage context is entirely left to inference.

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