get_publisher_by_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the comprehensive nature of the returned data ('performance metrics, supply chain information, detailed explanations'), which adds useful context about output richness. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it likely is).

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 reasonably concise with two sentences that pack substantial information. The first sentence states the core functionality, while the second elaborates on the return data. There's no obvious fluff or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the comprehensive return data earlier.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It helpfully describes the richness of the return data ('comprehensive metric descriptions', 'performance metrics', 'supply chain information'), which compensates for the missing output schema. However, for a tool that returns complex data structures, more detail about the response format would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single 'domain' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'domain name' but doesn't elaborate on format requirements, validation rules, or examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed publisher information by domain name' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_publisher_by_id' by specifying the domain-based lookup approach. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_publisher_metadata' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions domain-based lookup, it doesn't specify when to choose this over 'get_publisher_by_id' (ID-based lookup) or 'get_publisher_metadata' (which might provide different metadata). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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