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

Description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the status values, the inclusion of a post URL upon success, and the specific behavior for drafts. No contradictions found.

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, efficiently covering the resource, possible values, and edge cases. No wasted words; key information is front-loaded.

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 status-checking tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: status values, URL availability, and draft behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 a clear description of the job_id parameter. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 returns the status of a publish_post job, listing all possible statuses and noting the post URL and special behavior for drafts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_publish_options and publish_post.

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 is implied that the tool should be used after calling publish_post, as it requires a job_id from that function. However, no explicit 'when-not' or alternatives are provided, but the context is clear.

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