fedlex_get_recent_publications

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are false. The description adds value by explaining it returns 'Erstpublikationen (AS)' and not the consolidated version, which is crucial behavioral information beyond the 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 very concise with two sentences and three XML tags. It front-loads the purpose and uses structured tags for use_case, important_notes, and example, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

For a straightforward retrieval tool, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what is retrieved (AS publications), the time window, and a usage example. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed. The limit parameter is missing, so it's not fully complete.

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 mentions days range in important_notes and provides an example with days and language. However, it does not explain the limit parameter. The schema already describes days and language, so the description adds marginal extra meaning. The parameter coverage in the description is incomplete.

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 it retrieves the latest publications of the Amtliche Sammlung (AS). The use_case tag provides concrete context for monitoring legal changes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fedlex_search_laws or fedlex_get_law_by_sr.

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 includes a use_case (regular monitoring) and important_notes that clarify it returns first publications, not consolidated law. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or name alternative tools.

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