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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the outcome vocabulary (publishing, completed/published, draft, scheduled, failed), the live URL, and the error field. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether a failed job can be retried, but for a status-lookup operation the disclosure is solid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covers purpose, both identifier branches, and return values with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns — which it does by listing statuses, live URL and error. All three optional parameters are accounted for and both lookup modes are described, leaving nothing critical for an agent to guess.

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 100%, so the schema already explains job_id, post_id and connection_id in equivalent terms; the description largely restates those origins. It adds no syntax, format, or precedence guidance (e.g. what happens if both job_id and post_id are supplied), 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?

The description states a specific verb-plus-resource ('Check a publish', 'look up a post') and names two sibling tools (docswrite-publish-post, docswrite-list-posts) as the source of the identifiers, so an agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening a schema. It also enumerates the possible status values, making the tool's job unambiguous.

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 clearly routes the agent: use job_id for a publish started by docswrite-publish-post, or post_id for a post from docswrite-list-posts. That is explicit branch selection, though it never states when not to use this tool or how it differs from docswrite-list-connections.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the scope constraint (only connections of the organization tied to this API key) and the exact response fields, including the meaning of the 'api' field (whether publishable through this server, which states, which basic options). It omits pagination behavior, result-size limits, and what happens on auth failure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return shape, then the routing hint. The long parenthetical platform list is slightly heavy but doubles as useful domain vocabulary for the platform filter.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the non-obvious 'api' object. With only two fully documented, optional filter parameters, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination behavior is left unstated.

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 100% and both filters (status enum, platform string) are self-documenting there, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions status only as a returned field, not as a filter, and never explains the platform filter syntax, so it adds nothing over the schema.

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 ('List every publishing connection') and scopes it precisely to the Docswrite organization the API key belongs to. The platform enumeration makes the resource unambiguous and clearly separates it from docswrite-list-posts and docswrite-get-post-status.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: the returned ids are to be used with docswrite-publish-post, which is the strongest possible when-to-use signal for a lookup tool. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or mention the filtering alternatives, so it falls short of the top band.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the ordering (newest first), the statuses included, and the return item fields (id, title, connection, status, dates, url, error). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it cover pagination behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, while the second efficiently lists the return fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's list of return fields (id, title, connection, status, dates, url, error) is valuable and necessary. It also covers ordering and included statuses. It omits pagination and filter behavior, but the schema documents those parameters well. For a 10-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete.

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 90%, so the input schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning or syntax beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the organization's posts across all connections, newest first: published, scheduled, drafts, in-flight and failed publishes.' This clearly scopes the tool to listing posts with a defined ordering and status set. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like docswrite-get-post-status or docswrite-list-connections.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer docswrite-get-post-status or other siblings. Usage is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses real behavioral nuance: one request per connection, connections that don't support an option are skipped with an explanation rather than published incorrectly, wait_seconds bounds the wait and each connection returns status plus live URL or error, the doc must be readable by the API-key user, and X/LinkedIn are unsupported. It does not state whether publishing is irreversible or how retries interact with idempotency_key, which are the remaining gaps for a write tool.

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 core action and its scope are front-loaded, followed by state handling, option application, and waiting/return behavior. It is dense but nearly every sentence adds operative detail; the description is one long paragraph rather than clearly delimited ideas, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 17-parameter tool with nested platform_options and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is published, how options are applied per platform, the timeout behavior, and the shape of the result (per-connection status and live URL or error). It does not explain how to retrieve results when wait_seconds=0 returns job ids early, leaving a small gap given there is no output schema.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter relationships the schema cannot express: scheduled requires publish_date (and optionally timezone), basic options are applied only where the platform supports them, and unsupported options cause a skip rather than a silent drop. These are genuine additions on top of the per-field schema text.

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 ('Publish a Google Doc to one or more connections of the organization') and explicitly distinguishes its sibling by naming docswrite-list-connections as the source of ids. It also names the unsupported platforms (X, LinkedIn), so an agent can rule the tool in or out without opening a 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 conditions for the state parameter (draft default, scheduled requires publish_date) and routes the agent to docswrite-list-connections for ids. It stops short of saying what to do after the call returns early (e.g. use docswrite-get-post-status when wait_seconds=0 returns job ids), which is the main sibling-routing gap.

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