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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the meaning of the records (publish attempts) and the job_status outcome domain (queued/success/failed), plus the underlying PostgREST endpoint. It doesn't cover pagination behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three compact fragments with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly telegraphic ('PostgREST: GET /publications') but each piece carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully explains what records come back and what job_status values mean. Combined with a fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only return-shape/pagination detail is thin.

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% and the sole 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema as the PostgREST row cap. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so this sits at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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+resource ('List publication history/status') and clarifies the unit of data — 'each publish attempt of a draft' — which meaningfully separates it from the action tool estuary_publish_draft and from estuary_list_drafts. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied (read publication history/status rather than publish), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternative tools like estuary_list_drafts or estuary_view_task_logs.

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