get_publish_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it will not retry a submission, 'submitted' does not equal publicly visible, and 'unknown' requires manual verification – non-obvious semantics that meaningfully change how an agent interprets results.

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?

Two compact clauses, purpose front-loaded ahead of the caveats, with no filler. Slightly telegraphic phrasing costs it the top mark, but every clause 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with a rich annotation set and no output schema, the description covers purpose, non-retry behavior, and the interpretation of key status values. The main gap is the silent job_id parameter, which is nowhere explained in prose.

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?

There is one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description would need to carry the meaning. It never mentions job_id or clarifies that it identifies the publish job, though the schema's uuid format/pattern and the phrase '发布任务' make the intent partially inferable.

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 ('读取发布任务' – read the publish job) plus the evidence it returns ('可用的网页结果证据'), which is more precise than the bare name get_publish_status. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as publish_note or cancel_prepared_note, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description implies the tool's role as a read-only status check ('不会重试提交' tells the agent not to use it to re-submit), and the status caveats hint at when its results need follow-up. But it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-to-use condition relative to publish_note or cancel_prepared_note, so guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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