Publishers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior an agent could not get from annotations: names are derived from the site map and word separators are approximate, which warns against exact-string matching.

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?

Two short blocks, front-loaded with the resource definition before the routing hint. The line-broken fragments are slightly choppy but nothing is redundant.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data caveats, and next steps. Only pagination/return-shape details are unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 both limit and query are documented at baseline 3. The description adds the downstream semantics of the id (usable as organization_ids in mkh_browse), which is meaning the schema does not carry.

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 names the specific resource (course publishers, ~180 of them) and clarifies the output is ids used as filters, which separates it from mkh_browse and mkh_categories. The verb 'list' is only implicit, and the fragmentary first sentence keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use mkh_organization for detail on one entry, or feed an id into mkh_browse via organization_ids. That is a concrete when-to-use-this vs. when-to-use-sibling instruction rather than an implied one.

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