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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate those. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the section's newness, the likelihood of empty results, the typical deposition source, and the specific return fields (title, hosting organization, external identifiers, access period). This helps the agent set expectations without contradicting any annotation.

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?

The description is three sentences with no redundancy. It leads with the main verb and resource, then packs useful contextual details and return fields into a compact structure. 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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it defines the tool's purpose, the data's typical state (mostly empty), who deposits it, and what the response contains. An agent can decide whether to call it and what to expect without further 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'orcid_id', including format and accepted URI or bare forms. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('research resources associated with an ORCID researcher'), and enumerates the exact types included (compute allocations, equipment access, lab facilities, data resources, clinical study registrations). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by referencing the ORCID section, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly scopes usage to research resources and adds practical guidance: it's a newer section, most researchers have no entries, and deposits come from resource-allocation systems like ACCESS and XSEDE. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling names (affiliations, funding, works) and the focused description make the usage context clear.

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