get_new_publications

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

With no annotations, the description fails to explicitly state that the tool is read-only and has no side effects. It only lists parameters, leaving behavioral assumptions unverified.

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 succinct but uses a docstring style with bulleted arguments. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be more concise by omitting the repetitious 'Args:' label, but overall 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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers optional parameters and defaults, but lacks information about sorting (e.g., newest first) or pagination beyond the limit parameter.

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 description fully documents all three parameters (topic, limit, unread_only) with defaults and meanings, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. This adds essential value beyond the raw schema.

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 new publications with optional topic filtering, using a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('new publications'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_publications_read' (which modifies state) and 'scan_news' (which scans external sources).

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 for fetching recent publications but provides no guidance on when to avoid this tool or consider alternatives (e.g., 'search_literature' for broader queries). No explicit context or exclusions are given.

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