publish_message

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

Annotations already convey that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, and the description's 'publish' action aligns with those. The description adds that the message is text and targets a topic, but it does not disclose other behavior such as delivery semantics, error conditions, or whether the topic must already exist. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean Args block. There is no filler or redundant content; every line adds useful information.

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 tool with three required parameters, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly, and the presence of an output schema means return-value details are not needed. However, it lacks any pointer to how this relates to put_message or other message-writing tools, so the full invocation context is slightly incomplete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does this well by providing each parameter's meaning (queue manager name, topic string, message body) and concrete examples. This is sufficient for an agent to fill in the arguments correctly.

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 states a specific action (publish) and a specific resource (a topic), and clarifies that the message is text. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool put_message, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as put_message. The description only provides parameter examples; there is no mention of the intended scenario, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer when publish_message is the right choice.

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