get_publisher_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content ('formatted data including performance metrics, supply chain information, and detailed explanations') but lacks critical behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the action and scope, and the second elaborates on the return data. There's no unnecessary verbosity, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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's complexity (a single-parameter read operation) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return content but misses behavioral aspects like error handling or prerequisites. Without an output schema, it should ideally detail the return structure more explicitly, but it provides enough context for basic use, albeit with gaps.

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 parameter 'publisherId' documented as 'Publisher ID to search for.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the parameter is used to fetch data. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameter.

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 Publisher ID with comprehensive metric descriptions.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('publisher information'), and key identifier ('Publisher ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_publisher_by_domain or get_publisher_metadata, which likely retrieve similar data using different identifiers or scopes.

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. It mentions the tool retrieves data by Publisher ID but doesn't compare it to siblings like get_publisher_by_domain (which might use a domain instead) or get_publisher_metadata (which could offer different data types). Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose the correct tool for a given scenario.

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