play_content_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it reports a count of outstanding declarations, the gating rule that a draft only publishes once all are complete, and the fact that the declarations are console-only with no API endpoint. It does not state whether this call is strictly read-only, whether it needs auth, or whether it is rate-limited, which keeps it below 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome (how many declarations are missing) before the rationale. Every sentence adds information; only the terseness of the final dash clause slightly weakens readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value format needn't be explained, and the single-parameter surface is small. The description covers purpose, the publish-gating rule, and the console-only limitation, leaving only the parameter's meaning unaddressed.

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% and the description says nothing about package_name — which app the count is scoped to, its format, or where to obtain it. With one required parameter undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: counts missing "App content" declarations and frames it as a publish-readiness check. It is distinguishable from the fill-in siblings (play_content_open/answer/save) because it reports status rather than completing forms, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it (checking whether a draft can leave draft state before publishing) and adds a genuine constraint — the declarations themselves have no API endpoint, so this is a read-only checkpoint rather than a completion path. No explicit 'use X instead' routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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