get_publisher

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return of both publisher info and a paginated edition list, implicitly revealing the pagination behavior through editions_limit and editions_offset. No contradictions. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or output field details, but acceptable for a lookup tool.

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 two-part sentence: first part states the lookup action and valid keys, second part specifies the return (info + paginated editions). No filler words, front-loaded with key action, and every clause earns its place.

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 covers purpose, input identifiers, and output structure. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the fields in publisher info or the edition list structure. Also missing guidance on parameter mutual exclusivity (likely only one identifier at a time). Adequate but leaves some gaps given the 5-parameter complexity.

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 individual parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that the three identifier parameters (id, slug, name) are alternative lookup keys and that editions_limit/editions_offset control pagination of the returned list. This contextual grouping enhances schema semantics.

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 looks up a publisher by one of three identifiers (ID, slug, or name) and returns publisher info plus a paginated list of editions. This specific verb+resource+return distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_author, get_book, etc.

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 for publisher lookups by three distinct identifiers but does not explicitly differentiate when to use which parameter or compare with other tools. However, the context of sibling tools (all for different entities) provides implicit guidance.

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