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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds slight context by noting the publication is 'public' and the identifier is 'canonical,' but these details are also present in the parameter schema. No behavioral surprises are disclosed beyond those already implied by 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that instantly communicates purpose and usage. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only getter, the description is fully adequate. The output schema exists, annotations cover the behavioral safety profile, and the description tells the agent exactly when to use it. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the 'id' parameter described as 'Canonical public identifier.' The description echoes 'canonical identifier' but adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter explanation.

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 'get' and the resource 'one public publication by canonical identifier,' which is specific and distinct from its siblings. It inherently separates itself from list_publications (singular vs plural) and from other resource-specific getters like get_project or get_experience.

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 frames the usage condition ('when an agent needs to get one public publication by canonical identifier'), giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the top score but provides unambiguous guidance.

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