tokportal_get_bundle_publish_readiness

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by stating that it returns blockers without mutating the bundle, settling Coverage, or debiting credits. It also explains the meaning of a specific error type and how to resolve it. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds useful details about return behavior, error handling, and edge cases. Each sentence contributes meaningfully. It is slightly longer than necessary but still concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains what it returns, what it does not do, and how to handle a specific error. The only minor gap is the lack of a detailed return format, but the description is still informative enough for an agent.

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?

There is only one parameter ('id') with a schema description of 'Bundle ID.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add extra parameter details. The description does not provide additional context about the parameter itself, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Check bundle publish readiness,' a clear verb+resource. It explains what it returns (publish blockers) and explicitly what it does not do (no mutation, no settling Coverage, no debiting credits), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tokportal_publish_bundle.' The mention of a specific error type and further guidance reinforces the precise purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (before publishing) and what to do if a specific blocker appears (fetch the managed subscription for authoritative state). It also warns about temporary blocks. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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