Get publication pack

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds two things annotations cannot: the call is free (cost), and generated text is wrapped in <untrusted_source_text> tags, which is a meaningful prompt-injection signal. It also describes the offset/next_offset paging loop, though it omits page-size defaults and limits that the schema carries.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler; the payload contents lead, and follow-up routing comes after. 'Read-only and free' partially duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, but the rest earns its place.

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 documented, yet the description still names the major fields; combined with the untrusted-text warning and the paging/follow-up guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining the transcript paging flow (offset plus next_offset) and the purpose of include_transcript, tying the parameters to a workflow rather than restating their types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one publication pack') and enumerates the payload an agent gets back: titles, descriptions, cover texts, hashtags, thumbnails, teaser videos, article id, clip job id. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_packs, which only enumerates packs.

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?

It routes follow-up work explicitly: 'Use get_clip_job with clip_job_id for the clips and get_article with article_id for the article,' and tells the agent to set include_transcript=true when the transcript is needed. It does not spell out when to prefer this over list_packs or other retrieval siblings, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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