tokportal_get_bundle_publish_readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explicitly stating the tool does not mutate the bundle, settle Coverage, or debit credits, and explains the temporary blockage scenario. This deepens the behavioral understanding beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, from the core function to specific blocker details and temporal caveats. It is efficient without being overly verbose, though slight tightening could be possible.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must describe return behavior. It does so by stating it returns 'every current publish blocker' and details a specific blocker type. The context about temporary blocks and the follow-up action for managed subscriptions adds completeness. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output, though the exact return format (list vs. object) is not specified.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a description 'Bundle ID.' The tool description does not add any additional semantics or context about the parameter (e.g., how to obtain the bundle ID). Since the schema already covers the parameter, the description adds no extra value, leaving the baseline at 3.

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 tool 'Check bundle publish readiness' and specifies it returns 'every current publish blocker' without mutation. The verb+resource is precise, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tokportal_get_bundle or tokportal_publish_bundle, though the unique read-only check behavior is implied.

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 actionable guidance, including how to interpret the MANAGED_ACCOUNT_TASK_BLOCKED blocker and a recommendation to fetch the managed subscription for authoritative state. It also notes that temporary blocks may appear until renewal is settled, giving context on when results might be misleading. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings.

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