ghl_ad_google_get_publishing_progress

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data is Redis-backed (transient progress state rather than persisted records), it is only meaningful during an active publish, and it requires the adPublishing.readonly OAuth scope.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by usage context, then endpoint/version/scope metadata that an agent genuinely benefits from. The one mild redundancy is the first line echoing the title verbatim.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: it indicates the return content ('step counts and completion state') and the temporal window in which that content exists. A note on behavior after publishing finishes (empty result, 404, or final state) would close the remaining gap.

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 both adId and locationId already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's endpoint line reinforces that adId is a path parameter, but it adds nothing about locationId or the format of either identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ad publishing progress'), then narrows it to 'Redis-backed publish progress for a Google campaign while it is publishing.' This is clearly distinct from the mutation siblings like ghl_ad_google_campaign_publish and from the Facebook analogue.

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?

'While it is publishing' and 'poll step counts and completion state' give a clear condition for use, and the polling framing tells the agent this is a repeated-read tool rather than a one-shot check. It stops short of naming the publish call that precedes it or stating what to do once publishing completes.

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