List Publications (Sales Channels)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context about the content (types of sales channels) and the intended use (getting publication IDs for publishing). It does not describe return format or pagination, but with robust annotations this is sufficient.

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 two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose with examples; the second adds a clear motivation. Every word earns its place, and it is neither too terse nor overly verbose.

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 simple list tool with 3 well-documented parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers why this tool exists and how the results should be used. It explains the need for publication IDs and gives channel examples, making it complete for an agent selecting the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (limit, store, response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what is in the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'List the store's publications (sales channels)'. It also provides concrete examples (Online Store, Facebook & Instagram, Point of Sale) and notes the need for a publication ID before publishing. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like product_publications_get, the scope is clear and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: 'You need a publication ID before you can publish a product to a channel.' It implies this tool is a prerequisite for publishing workflows, but it does not explicitly describe alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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