de_list_publishers

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the data source (ELI agent slot) and the non-exhaustive limitation, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction detected.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes necessary context (NeuRIS source, origin) and a clear return type, with no redundant sentences. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it lists, how it is derived, its limitations, and the return structure. Nothing essential 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on them. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than parameters.

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 lists German publication organs (ELI agent codes), a specific verb and resource. It explains the derivation from ELI agent slot and names the limitation (non-exhaustive), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explains the context (no publisher-dictionary endpoint, derived from ELI agent slot) and the non-exhaustive nature, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but among siblings it is the only publisher-list tool, making the use case obvious.

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