get_publication_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: these rules are policy that gates publishing, and consent must be per-listing rather than derived from the account connection. It does not say what the rules contain or how to act on them, which keeps it below a 5.

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 wasted words, and the timing condition is front-loaded before the consent guardrail. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers what and when adequately. However, it raises a consent obligation without saying where consent is actually supplied — this tool is read-only and cannot record it — leaving the agent to guess whether create_listing carries the consent flag. That gap matters for a compliance-gated workflow.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no scoping input is needed by referring to 'current' rules globally.

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 and resource ('Read current publication rules and separate consent requirements') and immediately scopes it to the listing workflow, which cleanly separates it from the CRUD siblings like create_listing or update_listing. An agent knows this is a pre-flight read, not a mutation, without opening anything else.

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?

Explicit timing is given: call it 'before creating or editing a listing', which maps directly onto create_listing and update_listing siblings. It does not name those siblings or state any when-not condition, so it falls short of full alternative routing, but the trigger condition is clear.

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