apple_maps_guides_publishers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sorting (by name), the returned fields, and the behavior when city_id is omitted. It does not mention pagination, error handling for invalid city_id, rate limits, or the exact effect of lang and country parameters. It is moderately transparent but leaves some operational details undocumented.

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, fairly concise. It front-loads the purpose and then details the output and the special case. There is a slight redundancy: 'List Apple Guides publishers worldwide or for one city' is restated as 'for the Worldwide scope or one city' in the second sentence. Overall, it is well-structured and not verbose, but the duplication is avoidable.

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 no output schema, the description lists all returned fields, which is crucial. It also explains the primary scoping behavior (worldwide vs. city) and a practical use case. It lacks explicit notes on pagination, error handling, or how country and lang interplay, but for a simple listing tool, the essential information is present. The completeness is above average for such tools.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for city_id: it explains that omitting it yields the worldwide list and that it serves as a lookup table. This goes beyond the schema's brief note. lang and country are not further clarified, but the description's treatment of the most impactful parameter adds value.

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 action (List), resource (Apple Guides publishers), and scope (worldwide or one city). It specifies the exact output fields (id, name, subtitle, website, number of guides) and even mentions the publisher endpoint, distinguishing it from the singular publisher tool. The phrase 'complete enumeration' further clarifies that with no city_id, it returns all publishers, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance: it explains that omitting city_id gives the complete worldwide list and that the result can serve as an id lookup table for the publisher endpoint. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like apple_maps_guides or apple_maps_guides_nearby, nor does it state when to prefer this over alternatives. The use-case hint is helpful but not exhaustive.

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