Get publications by subscription email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: that it reads account data and that OAuth integrations require the publications:read scope, which is actionable auth information.

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, each carrying content (purpose, data class, auth scope), with the core purpose front-loaded. Only mild redundancy with the title in the first sentence.

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 tool with full annotations and full schema coverage, the auth note is a good addition. However, with no output schema, the description does not indicate that results are publication ID/name pairs (expandable via the expand parameter), leaving the return shape to inference.

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%, so email, expand and account are fully documented in the schema, including the expand enum semantics. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('publications') scoped by subscription email, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It is distinguishable from get_subscription_by_email and list_publications in substance, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 no guidance on when to choose this over list_publications or get_subscription_by_email, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

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