otp_list_publishers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose if results are sorted, paginated, or what 'actively publishing' means. No mention of rate limits, authentication, or side effects. For a list tool, more detail on behavior is 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?

Two concise sentences that directly convey purpose and output. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is listed and returned. It lacks some context (e.g., pagination behavior, ordering) but is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's basic function.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'limit' parameter already described. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the action (list organizations), the scope (actively publishing on OTP), and the return fields (name, slug, publish count, last-publish date). Distinguishes well from sibling tools like otp_get_org which retrieves a specific org's details.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like otp_get_org or otp_search_best_practices. The description implies usage for listing publishers but does not clarify scenarios or limitations.

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