Get a publish run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the set of terminal/non-terminal states and notes that a message and details are returned, but says nothing about polling cadence or when a run stops changing state.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the state enum and return contents appended as useful detail. No filler or redundancy.

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 return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the status values and the accompanying message/details. It stops just short of what an agent would want on error cases or unknown run ids.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'runId' has no type or format notes in the schema. The description partially compensates by saying the id comes from publish_post, but gives no shape, format, or example of the value.

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 ('check the status of a publish run') and enumerates the possible states (queued, running, succeeded, failed), so the agent knows exactly what surface it reads. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_job_runs, which lists runs rather than retrieving one.

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 ties the tool to its origin ('returned by publish_post'), making the intended workflow — polling a run you just started — clear without spelling it out. It never names an alternative or a when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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