byte_get_publisher

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds value by specifying the returned data components (status, counts, revenue, schema), providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key data fields. No redundancy or extra words.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and existence of an output schema (not shown but implied), the description covers the necessary context. It lists the returned data types, making it complete for a read-only info retrieval 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema's description of the single 'address' parameter ('Publisher Ethereum address (0x...)') is clear. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 the tool retrieves on-chain info for a specific PayPerByte publisher, listing concrete data fields (status, counts, revenue, schema). It distinguishes from sibling tools like byte_search_publishers (search multiple) and byte_list_feeds (list feeds) by its specificity to a single publisher address.

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 implies usage when needing info on a specific publisher by address, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling tools exist, but no guidance is given.

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