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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool is paginated and that full texts are not included, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention default pagination size, max page size, or that facets can be requested, but those are visible in the schema. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key filters, then pagination and the sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense with filter names but still efficient.

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 complex read tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It tells the agent this is a paginated detailed-record getter and routes full-text needs elsewhere. But it doesn't explain the facets parameter, the meaning of 'detailed' vs list_publications, or what the response contains. Given the tool's complexity (nested filters, 7 top-level params), more context would help an agent select and invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It names publicationIds, workTypes, and publicationTypes as filter dimensions, which adds some meaning. However, the schema has 7 top-level parameters and a large nested filters object with ~25 properties; the description only hints at a few. It doesn't explain what 'facets' does, what sortBy options mean, or how pagination parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds some value but doesn't compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed publication records'), and names the key filter dimensions (publicationIds, workTypes, publicationTypes). It distinguishes itself from get_publication_text by noting full texts are handled there. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_publications, which is a close sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives clear context: use this for detailed records, paginated, and full texts go to get_publication_text. It doesn't explicitly say when to use list_publications instead, but the 'detailed' qualifier and the explicit routing to get_publication_text provide useful guidance. No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear enough.

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