get_publication

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds rich behavioral details: defensive parsing, per-subrubrik schema variability, mandatory vs optional fields, best-effort additional fields, and a re-permission check that can return a scope message instead of content. No contradiction with annotations.

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: a concise purpose sentence, followed by detailed but relevant paragraphs, and a clear Args/Returns section. It is neither too long nor too short; every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose in the middle but still effective.

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 (schema variability, defensive parsing, permission re-check) and the presence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (full text, metadata, deadline, additional fields) and handles edge cases (blocked rubrik). It covers all necessary context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 already includes clear descriptions for both parameters (id as UUID with example, response_format as enum). The description text repeats these details without adding new meaning. Since schema_description_coverage is effectively 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), the description adds little extra semantics, justifying a baseline score of 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 'Einzelne Publikation inkl. amtlichem Volltext' (single publication with official full text), and distinguishes from siblings by noting that the list API only returns metadata, while this tool retrieves the actual content. The verb 'get' and resource 'publication' are specific.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (when full content is needed), distinguishing from the list API. It also mentions the re-checking process and blocked-rubrik scenario, providing context for potential behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives beyond the list API.

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