gazette_get_publication

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

The description enriches the annotations by revealing defensive parsing, best-effort handling of additional fields, and required response fields (meta, publicationText, plus company for HR rubrics). This goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints and sets expectations for output variability and edge cases.

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 compact and structured with an Args/Returns layout. It includes a valuable 'Quirk' note about the list API, which is high-signal. Slight verbosity in the German phrasing but every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one required parameter. The description explains the quirky data source, required fields, HR-specific behavior, and return format. Combined with annotations and existing schema descriptions, it provides adequate context for an agent to invoke it correctly. No major gaps are apparent.

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 lists the two parameters (id and response_format) with brief explanations, but the input schema already describes id with an example and response_format with an enum and default. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: retrieving a single publication including its official full text from XML, defensively parsed. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like gazette_company_publications by explicitly noting that the list API only provides meta, while this tool fetches the actual content.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: when you need the full text content that the list API omits. It explains the quirk that the actual content is only available via this tool's XML endpoint, giving an implicit use case and alternative. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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