List publications

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds extra value by revealing the short projection, newest-first ordering, and the exact state vocabulary including the non-obvious ready='scheduled' and sended='published' mappings. It does not mention pagination defaults, but the schema exposes limit/offset.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the first gives core behavior and output shape, the second enumerates states, and the third points to the sibling for full details. Details are front-loaded and 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 read-only list with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential selection and interpretation cues. It does not clarify behavior when id_organization is omitted or explicitly distinguish get_top_publications, but these are minor gaps given the schema and sibling names.

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 schema already documents most parameters, and the description adds some context by tying 'network' to the social_network concept and restating the state enum. However, it does not meaningfully explain limit, offset, or social_network value formats beyond what self-explanatory names and schema descriptions provide.

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 clearly states the operation: list an organization's posts, newest first, with a defined short projection. It also distinguishes itself from get_publication by noting that the full record—including failure reasons—is available there.

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?

It explicitly redirects to get_publication when a full record is needed, which is strong alternative guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with get_top_publications or mention when the list is inappropriate, but the main use case is clear.

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