get_company_publications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful behavior — results ordered most recent first, paging via maxResults/offset, source is the Zefix API — but says nothing about read-only nature, return shape, or rate limits.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence front-loads the core action and appends the paging/ordering detail with no wasted words.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers action, scope, ordering, and paging. With no output schema, the return contents are only named ('SOGC publications') rather than characterized, which is 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (uid, offset, maxResults) are already fully documented in the schema with formats, defaults, and limits. The description only reiterates that paging uses these two params, adding no syntax beyond the 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 verb ('Get'), resource ('SOGC publications'), and scope ('for a specific company by UID'). The resource is distinct from siblings like get_company_details_uid or get_daily_registrations, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this retrieves publications for a known UID, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to siblings such as get_company_details_uid or advanced_search.

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