gazette_get_publication

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond annotations, including: the source is XML, schema varies per subrubric, required fields, best-effort handling of additional_fields, and a secondary check on rubric release that may refuse some IDs. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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 well-structured with clear sections (use case, technical details, args, returns) and is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose with mixed languages (German and English) and some redundancy (e.g., 'Einzelpublikation inkl. amtlichem Volltext' repeats the use case).

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 complexity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers usage, edge cases (refused IDs), and return values at a high level. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention that output structure depends on rubric type.

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 description lists both parameters (id and response_format) with brief additional context (example for id, default value for response_format). The input schema already provides similar descriptions, so the description adds limited extra value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'Retrieve the full text of one publication once you have its id from a search.' It clearly identifies the verb (retrieve), resource (full text of publication), and distinguishes from sibling tools like gazette_search_publications which are for searching.

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 that the tool should be used after obtaining an ID from a search ('once you have its id from a search'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings.

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