authoring-publishing-status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that by enumerating the state values, disclosing isDone/isFailed and the processed-item count, and instructing polling until isDone. This meaningfully enriches the behavioral picture for a read operation.

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 sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded, then return values, then the polling instruction in priority order.

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 compensates by naming the key return fields (state, isDone, isFailed, processed count) and the polling completion condition. Combined with readOnlyHint, an agent has everything needed to call and use it correctly.

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 schema itself fully documents publishingOperationId, including the format example and the semicolon-suffix caveat. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Reads) plus resource (status of a publish) and ties it to the exact sibling that produces the operation, authoring-publish-item. An agent can distinguish it from the publish/queue tools in the sibling list without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context (use after authoring-publish-item queues a publish) and explicit behavioral guidance ('Poll this until isDone before treating published content as live'). It does not mention alternative status mechanisms such as authoring-get-job, but the when-to-use case is unambiguous.

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