get_publication

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses extensive behavioral details about the returned data (subscribers, engagement, social, contributors, recent issues, rankings, SEO reach). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects.

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 sentence that conveys all necessary information without excess. It could be slightly improved by breaking the list of included data into bullet points, but it remains concise and informative.

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 absence of an output schema, the description comprehensively lists the types of data returned. It lacks details on error handling or limitations, but for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, it is largely 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% for the single parameter. The description adds value by giving an example ('doomberg'), but the schema already provides a clear description. 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 the specific verb 'Look up full metadata' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'newsletter by its Reletter slug'. It lists the data categories included, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_publications and get_issue.

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 when a slug is available and full metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_publications. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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