get_publisher_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is retrieved (published skills and verification status), adding useful context, but omits safety indicators (read-only nature), error behaviors, or rate limits that agents need for mutation-risk assessment.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get information...') and immediately specifies the scope of returned data.

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 low complexity (1 simple parameter, no nested objects, 100% schema coverage) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose by specifying the exact data returned (verification status), though it could note error cases for invalid publisher IDs.

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% (publisher_id is fully documented with type, description, and example), establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not mention the parameter at all, but given the high schema coverage, no additional compensation is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('skill publisher') and clarifies what data is returned ('published skills and verification status'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_skill_details that might also expose publisher metadata.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need publisher verification status rather than skill details), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing the exact publisher_id.

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