gazette_company_publications

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the exclusive entry via UID for legal entities, the intentional absence of person search, the return ordering (newest first), and the fields returned (date, rubric, title, ID). The 'README Data Protection & Scope' reference further clarifies scope limitations.

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 with a one-sentence summary, a contextual paragraph, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. It is moderately verbose but every section adds value. The README reference is a slight extra but is acceptable for scope clarification.

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 the main functional aspects: input requirements (only UID entry), optional filters, output format options, and return contents. An output schema exists, so detailed return types are not required, and the description provides a high-level summary of the returned data (date, rubric, title, ID). It does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases, but that is not critical for this tool.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level 'params' object, the description's Args section lists each nested field with inline explanations (e.g., uid required and regex-validated, limit range, date format, response_format options). The schema itself also has detailed per-property descriptions, but the tool description enriches this with usage-oriented context, such as 'Join-Schlüssel' for uid and the purpose of filter fields.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Alle Amtsblatt-Publikationen (SHAB + kantonal) zu einer Firmen-UID' (All official gazette publications for a company UID). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing the cross-reference between commercial register and gazette via UID, and explicitly notes that person-based search is not available.

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 explains the core use case (join between Handelsregister and Amtsblatt via UID) and states an explicit exclusion: 'ein Personen-Sucheinstieg existiert bewusst nicht.' It implies that the tool is for when you have a company UID and need its publication history, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for other entry points. This is clear context without fully explicit when-to-use vs alternatives.

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