public_demo_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which comprehensively cover the tool's safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond 'return a receipt' – it doesn't clarify what 'path-free' means or how the receipt is constructed. With such strong annotations, the bar is lower, and the description meets the minimum by not contradicting them.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. Every word is necessary, and it front-loads the action ('Return') and the object ('path-free publication receipt'). Perfect example of minimalism without loss of clarity.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (which explains the return structure), the description doesn't need to duplicate that. However, the tool has no parameters and strong annotations, so the description is the main source of behavioral intent. It explains the what but not the 'why' – why an agent might want a 'path-free publication receipt' or what triggers its availability. This leaves a gap for an agent trying to decide if this is the right tool for a status-checking or workflow-progress scenario.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter details because none exist. However, it does explain what the tool returns (a receipt), which adds meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description achieves this by providing return context.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool returns a 'path-free publication receipt' for the current MCP process. The verb 'Return' and the specific object 'publication receipt' provide clear purpose. However, the term 'path-free' is somewhat technical and may not immediately convey what this receipt represents or why an agent would need it.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like governance_prepare_codex_dispatch or governance_get_capabilities, which also deal with receipts or status, there is no differentiation. The description does not state whether this is a status check, a setup requirement, or a diagnostic tool.

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