swissco_publications

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses that event_types changes the row shape via body fetch, that the gazette publishes ~1000 entries/day, and that the upstream API ignores its own cantons/subRubrics/q parameters so filtering is done client-side. Only pagination/ordering behavior is left unstated.

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?

Well front-loaded with the purpose, but it spends two long paragraphs enumerating output fields that are already declared in the output schema, which is redundant structure rather than useful conciseness.

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 7-parameter, all-optional, open-world read tool with an existing output schema, this is essentially complete: cost model, output-shape variance, and the underlying API quirk are all covered. Only sequencing/ordering and rate-limit specifics are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains why the filters exist at all (the anonymous API ignores its own filter params), why event_types is expensive ('Each one costs a body fetch'), and how the parameter alters the returned columns.

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?

Opens with a specific resource ('Commercial-register publications from the Swiss Official Gazette of Commerce') and makes clear this is a filtered list/fetch over those publications. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like swissco_search or swissco_events, but the resource 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives among the eight sibling tools. The only operational hint is implied – that event_types triggers body fetches – which is closer to a cost note than a usage rule.

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