Publishing status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of the result: staged progress states (preparing, uploading %, processing), error entries that include fixes, and the permalink appearing only after publication. It does not say what happens when a wait exceeds the timeout (partial status vs. error), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its return contents in a single tight sentence, followed by a short fragment on waiting. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic 'Can wait for changes' could be slightly clearer about the wait_seconds mechanism.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so well (progress states, errors with fixes, permalink). For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only timeout/failure behavior on the wait path is 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 coverage is 50%: wait_seconds is documented in the schema, while job_id is undocumented anywhere but is self-evident from the phrase 'status of a publishing job'. The phrase 'can wait for changes' adds the semantic that wait_seconds enables a blocking/long-poll style call rather than being a plain delay, which is a useful but modest addition.

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?

Names the specific resource (status of a publishing job) and enumerates what it reports: per-item progress states, errors with fixes, and the permalink once published. That is enough to separate it from publish_photo/publish_carousel (which start jobs) and media_host_status (which covers media hosting), 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the polling/observation step after starting a publish job via publish_photo or similar. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on preferring polling over the wait option, and no mention of what to do if the job ID is unknown.

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