swiss_company_publications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The description states this is read-oriented (gets publications, shows history), which conveys a non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't disclose whether the UID maps to Swiss company registry data, whether results vary by canton, pagination/limits, or what happens when no publications exist. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, more transparency would be expected.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a clarifying example of content type ('registration history, mergers'). No wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

With a single required parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the tool is relatively simple. The description adequately conveys the tool's core function. However, lacking any note about output format/return structure (the 'etc.' is vague) and no mention of what types of data might be returned, the description stops short of being fully complete.

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 single parameter 'uid' has 100% schema description coverage ('Company UID'), so the schema already documents it adequately. The description implies the UID is a company identifier by saying publications are 'for a company', but adds no format detail (e.g., should it be CH- prefixed, 9 digits, etc.). Since the schema covers the parameter fully, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get SOGC publications for a company') and names the source (Swiss Official Gazette). It clarifies scope with 'registration history, mergers, etc.' While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the sibling list includes swiss_company_by_uid and swiss_company_search which are clearly different operations (company lookup vs. publication history), so the purpose is reasonably clear.

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 retrieving publication/registration history tied to a company UID, which creates enough context against sibling company tools. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of when this tool is preferred over swiss_company_by_uid. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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