get_publisher_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed publisher information with metrics and explanations, which adds behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format structure, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and requirements. The bullet-point list efficiently organizes return information, but some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'Each metric includes detailed explanations...' might be implied). Overall, it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context on what the tool does and returns, including metric explanations. However, it lacks details on error cases, response format, or pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), making it incomplete for full agent understanding without structured data.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (publisherId, publisherDomain, limit, offset). The description adds value by specifying that either publisherId or publisherDomain is required, which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's optional parameters. However, it does not provide additional details on parameter interactions or usage examples.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed publisher metadata from OpenSincera API'), including comprehensive field descriptions. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_publisher_by_domain, get_publisher_by_id) by emphasizing comprehensive metadata rather than basic lookup, and explicitly mentions it accepts either publisherId or publisherDomain.

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 context for when to use this tool ('Requires either publisherId or publisherDomain') and implies usage for detailed metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling tools (e.g., get_publisher_by_domain/get_publisher_by_id), which might be for simpler lookups, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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