search_publications

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses all behavioral constraints: which rubrics are searched/excluded, no person name search, pagination limits, default values, and output format. This is comprehensive and adds significant value.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections for purpose, exclusions, defaults, parameters, and returns. Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly verbose in listing exclusions, but still efficient.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: allowed rubrics, date range, pagination, language, output format, and explicit constraints (no person search). For a tool with this complexity, the description is complete and leaves no major gaps.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description provides full parameter semantics in the 'Args' section, including allowed values, defaults, and how each parameter affects search behavior (e.g., keyword searches full text only, rubric defaults to all released). This compensates completely.

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?

Clearly states it searches official publications in the Amtsblattportal (SHAB + cantonal bulletins). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it covers multiple rubrics and explicitly lists exclusions, setting it apart from search_procurement which likely focuses on procurement.

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?

Provides detailed when-to-use guidance: only released rubrics, no personal name search, and explains behavior without rubric. Could explicitly mention alternatives like search_procurement for procurement-specific searches, but the sibling list and context are sufficient.

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