publish

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait — price/photo/links are enriched from the cache rather than supplied by the caller — and hints at update-vs-create via session_id, but it never states side effects, whether an existing results page is overwritten, or any permission/auth requirements for a write-like operation.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact per-parameter notes. Slightly dense and telegraphic (mixed inline pseudo-formatting), but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a mutation-style tool with no annotations, the definition omits what happens on republish, whether items replace or merge, and what title/summary are for — gaps an agent would notice at call time.

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 must compensate, and it does well for items (field names, verdict enum values, score 0-10, id provenance), request, queries and session_id. However, two of the six parameters — title and summary — get no explanation at all, leaving a clear gap.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and target: publish a curated selection to the results page. Combined with the items/verdict structure it is clear what the tool produces, but it never contrasts itself with siblings like search or details beyond the implicit 'id zoals uit search()' sequencing.

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?

Guidance is implied rather than stated: ids must come from search(), and session_id is 'meegeven om een bestaande sessie bij te werken' (pass to update an existing session). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or precondition statement, so the calling workflow must be inferred.

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