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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about filter semantics—distinguishing workTypes from publicationTypes and noting that filters target the contained work. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains a key distinction between filter types. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameter groups) but remains 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?

Given the complex schema with 7 top-level parameters and a nested filters object containing 25 properties, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, faceting, sorting, or the output format beyond 'summaries.' No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the returned data looks like. The lack of coverage for common list operations is a significant 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for all parameters. It only explicitly names two filter types (workTypes and publicationTypes) and vaguely mentions author/type/original year. It does not explain pagination parameters (page, offset, pageSize), facets, sorting (sortBy, sortOrder), or the many other filter options. This leaves most parameters unexplained.

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 and resource: 'List publication summaries.' It is specific about the output being summaries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from closely named siblings like get_publications or list_works, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the title alone.

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 some usage context by explaining that 'workTypes filters contained works; publicationTypes filters derived publication classification' and that filters match 'the same contained work.' This helps agents understand filter behavior but does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_publications, search_publication_text) or when not to use it.

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