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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds that the call performs checks 'without publishing' and frames the result as blockers, which tells the agent this is a probe that surfaces diagnostics rather than returning a pass/fail side effect. It does not mention rate limits or output shape, but goes beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the parenthetical placed where it clarifies outcome. Zero waste, though 'publish gate' is unexplained jargon that a naive agent may not resolve.

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?

A simple single-parameter read tool with full safety annotations and no output schema; the description conveys that the result is the set of blocking issues. Only minor gaps remain, such as what distinguishes a clean result from a failed check.

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% for the single required projectId, including an undocumented pattern constraint. The description only says 'for a project', which merely restates the parameter's name; it adds no format, source (where to obtain a projectId), or validation guidance.

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 and resource: 'run the publish gate's checks for a project'. The parenthetical '(what would block it)' clarifies intent, and 'without publishing' distinguishes it from an actual publish action. No sibling tool overlaps with this publish-readiness check, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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?

'without publishing' and 'what would block it' imply the pre-publish dry-run scenario, so intended usage is inferable. But no explicit prerequisites (e.g., required project state, permissions) or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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