ghl_ad_fb_campaign_publishing_progress_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's job is to add context. It does so by explaining the data source (Redis-backed) and the purpose (polling during publishing). This goes beyond just restating annotations and gives practical behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded: a clear first line, a second line with key behavior, and a third line with endpoint and auth. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 description explains the return type (publish progress step counts and completion state), data source (Redis-backed), and usage (validation funnel UI). However, it does not detail the output structure, which would be helpful given no output schema. Still, the core information is sufficient for a simple polling tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the three parameters has a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 'Get campaign publishing progress' and explains it returns Redis-backed progress for a campaign publishing to Meta. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like campaign_get (details) and campaign_reporting_get (reporting) by specifying it polls step counts and completion state during publishing.

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 explicitly says it is 'Used by the validation funnel UI to poll step counts and completion state,' which gives clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or situations where other tools would be preferred, though the use case is well-defined.

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