Get one publication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by revealing that the response includes 'publication_errors' — the list of reasons the post did not go out. This return-content detail is not available elsewhere since there is no output schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core return value ('full record' plus publication_errors) is front-loaded, followed immediately by the practical use case. Every sentence 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?

For a simple get-by-id read tool with one required parameter, the description is complete: it explains what the returned record contains, highlights the failure-reason list, and states exactly when to call it. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers the optional parameter. Nothing essential for invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. However, the only required parameter, id_publication, is self-evident from the tool name and title, and the optional id_organization already has a description in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('get') and resource ('publication'), and clarifies it returns the full record of one post, including publication_errors. It explicitly differentiates this from listing tools by describing the tool's unique diagnostic purpose: 'This is the tool to call when the user asks why a post failed.'

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 gives a clear, explicit when-to-use signal: 'the tool to call when the user asks why a post failed.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the stated use case is concrete enough for an agent to select it over siblings like list_publications or get_publication_stats.

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