get_publication

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, the description does not disclose potential behaviors like whether an invalid ID returns an error or empty result, whether authentication or rate limits apply, or what exactly 'details' include. For a tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. It wastes no words and is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 required params, no output schema, no enums), the description covers the core purpose and both parameters are documented. However, it lacks any nuance about the return value's shape, error behavior, or relationship to sibling tools like list_publications, so it is minimally viable but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'id' and 'domain' have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters interact (e.g., that both are needed to uniquely identify a publication) or what constitutes a valid 'BPS domain code'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since structured data already documents the 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('details of a single BPS publication'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_publications (which lists multiple) and get_press_release (which targets a different resource type). It precisely states what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_publications or get_press_release. There is no mention of use cases, when not to use it, or which alternative might be more appropriate for listing vs. single-item retrieval. This is a clear absence of usage direction.

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