tokportal_get_bundle_publish_readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating it does not 'settle Coverage, or debit credits' and explains temporary blocking behavior due to due periods. No contradiction 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 five sentences with the purpose front-loaded. It includes specific blocker type details and a recommendation to fetch another endpoint, which is useful but slightly verbose. Still efficient for the information conveyed.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, return value (publish blockers), and a special case (temporary blocking). It does not detail the full output structure, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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 100% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Bundle ID.'. The description does not add any additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'bundle publish readiness', and explicitly distinguishes this from mutation tools by stating 'without mutating the bundle'. It also differentiates from sibling tools like tokportal_publish_bundle by focusing on readiness checks.

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 context for when to use the tool (checking readiness before publishing) and mentions fetching the managed-subscription endpoint for authoritative state. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare directly with sibling tools like tokportal_get_bundle.

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