get_calendar_publication_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: state is read from the local Apple Calendar, and the event verification is conditional on Calendar access being available, which signals graceful degradation. It does not spell out what happens if the version is stale or how the two reads interact, but the added value over annotations is real.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the primary action front-loaded ('Read local Apple Calendar publication state'). The trailing conditional clause is slightly awkward but earns its place by flagging the access dependency.

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 and annotations cover safety, lowering the burden. Still, the description leaves the two required parameters entirely unexplained and doesn't clarify the relationship between reading local state and verifying the remote event, which is the main behavioral subtlety of this tool.

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 never mentions draftId or version. For a tool whose entire contract is (draftId, version) — presumably identifying a specific draft revision to check — the description gives no meaning, no relationship to the versioned publication, and no indication of what an invalid or outdated version yields. The schema only supplies type/format constraints, not semantics.

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: read the local Apple Calendar publication state, plus an optional verification of the event. That distinguishes it from get_notion_publication_status and from publish_to_calendar. The purpose is clear, though the dual 'read state + verify event' framing blurs whether it is one operation or two.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus get_notion_publication_status, preview_calendar_publication, or after publish_to_calendar. The only condition mentioned is 'when Calendar access is available', which describes a runtime environment rather than an invocation trigger.

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