List publications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the structured fields: that it reads account data and that OAuth integrations require the publications:read scope, which the agent cannot infer from annotations or 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the auth requirement; nothing is padded. The opening sentence is redundant with the name/title, which costs it the top mark but the overall brevity is good.

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 safe read-only lister with 100% schema coverage, the definition covers the essentials and adds the auth scope. However, with no output schema, the description says nothing about what a publication record contains or how the expand stats affect the response, leaving the agent guessing about return shape.

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 100% across all six optional parameters (pagination, expand enum, account, order_by, direction), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter detail whatsoever, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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 gives a verb+resource pair ('List publications'), which is intelligible, but it is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title with no differentiation from siblings like get_publication, list_accounts, or list_posts. An agent learns the operation class but nothing that helps it disambiguate within this large family of list/get tools.

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?

'Reads account data' hints at context but never states when to use this tool versus the many sibling listers, nor any exclusions or conditions. The only actionable guidance is an auth prerequisite, which is prerequisite information rather than usage guidance.

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