nmlp_lookup_publisher_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a lookup, implying it is read-only and non-destructive, but does not explicitly state side effects, authorization needs, or data freshness. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but could benefit from stating that it only returns information and does not modify any data.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action and adding concise detail about what is covered. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for the tool's purpose and output (conventions, wording, number lines, etc.) and notes the coverage of 850+ publishers. It does not specify return format or error handling, but for a simple lookup tool this is acceptable. Could mention handling of missing publishers.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'publisher' described with an example list. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the parameter's role. With high coverage, baseline is 3.

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: to look up a publisher's first-edition identification conventions. It specifies the types of information covered (stated-edition wording, number lines, colophons, dated printings) and the scope (850+ publishers). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'nmlp_identify_first_edition' (which identifies a book's edition) and 'nmlp_decode_number_line' (which decodes a specific number line).

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 the tool is used for looking up publisher conventions but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'nmlp_check_coverage' or 'nmlp_identify_first_edition'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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