Run publisher access probes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it reveals a local side effect ('update the local sanitized health report') and a conditional behavior for supporting files. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 only three sentences and each one earns its place: the first defines the action and side effect, the second gives a default/omission rule, and the third explains the conditional flag. It is front-loaded and has no filler.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema present. The description covers the main action, the side effect, the default behavior for publisher_ids, and the conditional behavior for include_supplementary. Minor gaps remain around what exactly is probed and what the updated health report contains, but overall it is adequate for invocation.

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. It does: publisher_ids behavior is explained via the omission rule, and include_supplementary is directly tied to supporting files. The description could be richer about what 'publisher_ids' contain and what 'supporting files' are, but it provides working semantics for both parameters.

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 states a clear action ('Run full-text probes') and a concrete side effect ('update the local sanitized health report'), which goes beyond the title. It is distinct from sibling tools like literature_read or literature_publishers, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 gives a clear usage condition: omit publisher_ids to check all approved article baselines. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as literature_health or literature_read, leaving that to inference.

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