gazette_list_rubrics

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains default filtering to green rubrics, the effect of rubric_class='all', and the important caveat that listing does not imply searchability. Annotations already cover safety, so the description enriches understanding of data semantics.

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 structured but contains a German sentence that may not add value for an agent. The Args section repeats schema info. While it is organized with headings, it could be more concise. Score 3.

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 usage context, parameter behavior, and output overview. Given the presence of an output schema, the brief description of the return value is sufficient. It explains when to use and what to expect, making it contextually complete. Score 4.

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 includes an Args section that mirrors the schema parameters but adds explanatory context, such as the meaning of 'green' vs 'all' and language options. Since the schema already contains descriptions, the description provides moderate added value. Score 4.

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 tool's purpose: to discover available rubrics and their server status, with a clear use case for search troubleshooting. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by positioning this as a prerequisite.

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 clear usage context: when searches return nothing. It explains the purpose of distinguishing between missing publications and unavailable rubrics. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the sibling tools are search-oriented, making the distinction clear. Score 4 due to lack of explicit negative guidance.

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