Get one publication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that the returned record includes publication_errors — the failure reasons — which is exactly the content an agent needs for the 'why did it fail' use case.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The most valuable content (publication_errors, the failure-diagnosis use case) is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some return-value burden; it discloses the most important field (publication_errors) but does not enumerate the rest of the 'full record.' For a low-complexity, two-parameter getter with safety annotations, this is nearly sufficient, with only the untold remainder of the record as a minor gap.

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 50%: id_organization is documented in the schema, but the required id_publication has no description anywhere. The definition adds no parameter guidance at all, so the required lookup key must be inferred from the field name alone. This is the minimum viable baseline for a partially documented schema.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'The full record of one post,' which cleanly separates it from list_publications and the create/update/retry siblings that operate on publications. It also highlights the distinctive payload field (publication_errors), so an agent can tell what makes this tool unique without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition: 'the tool to call when the user asks why a post failed.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_publication_stats or retry_publication instead).

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