get_notion_publication_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read; the description adds the genuinely useful detail that the data is 'local' (stored state, not a live Notion API probe) and includes retry bookkeeping. It does not say what happens when no status record exists (empty result vs error) or whether the local status can be stale relative to Notion.

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 14-word sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a narrow read tool, though the term 'per-item' is never unpacked and slightly muddies an otherwise clean statement.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains unaddressed is the operational context an agent needs: whether this reflects local storage that may lag Notion, and the expected state when no publication has been attempted yet.

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%, so the description must compensate; 'one draft version' does implicitly name both required parameters (draftId, version) and clarifies that version is a draft-version selector. However, it adds no meaning about version semantics (monotonic? latest? which values are valid) or draftId format beyond what the schema pattern already constrains.

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 ('Read') and resource ('Notion publication and retry status'), with scope qualifiers 'local' and 'per-item'. The Notion/Calendar split is encoded in the name, which distinguishes it from get_calendar_publication_status, though no sibling is named 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?

The phrase 'for one draft version' bounds the call but never says when to choose this tool over preview_notion_publication, validate_notion_connection, or publish_to_notion. There is no when-not guidance and no stated prerequisite flow (e.g., 'after publish_to_notion').

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