list_publications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List BPS publications' without explaining return format, pagination behavior, read-only nature, or any side effects. There is no indication of what happens with no parameters or how filters interact, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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 concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds useful context about publications. There is no redundancy or filler, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite minimal. It does not explain what the response looks like, how pagination works, or how the year/month/domain/keyword filters combine. While the schema covers parameter names, the overall context is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and output.

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%, so all five parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond that. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List BPS publications.' The verb 'List' combined with the resource 'BPS publications' is specific. It also adds context that publications contain in-depth analysis and statistical reports. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_press_releases or get_publication, so it's not a 5.

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. It does not mention when to prefer list_publications over list_press_releases or get_publication, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. This is a clear gap.

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