List publishers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context beyond this by disclosing the return payload (publisher identifiers plus Swiss UID) and the UID's role as the join key to register-mcp (Zefix). No contradiction exists.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a brief return-value note and a clean Args block. Every line adds information with no padding, repetition, or vague filler.

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?

With an output schema present and all five optional parameters documented in both schema (defaults, enums, bounds) and description, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly. Defaults like language 'de' and page_size 50 are already encoded in the schema, and the description covers the rest — the tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning — and it delivers. All five parameters are explained in an Args block, with concrete format guidance: the 'CHE-123.456.789' UID example, 1-based pagination, the 1-100 page_size bound, and language applicability. This completely compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (List), a resource (public bodies/publishers), and scope (publishing into I14Y), which inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_datasets and list_public_services. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement 'Returns publisher identifiers needed by the other tools' gives clear context for when to use it — when a downstream tool requires a publisher identifier. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer search_catalog over this tool.

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