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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: per-record errors for not-found or inaccessible put-codes are surfaced as error entries rather than failing the whole call. It also enumerates the returned fields (abstract, CRediT contributors, external ID list, citation metadata, journal, URL). No contradiction exists — 'Fetch' aligns with readOnlyHint.

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 four-sentence paragraph that front-loads the core action in the first sentence and then builds detail. Every sentence earns its place: scope, input provenance, returned fields, and error behavior. It is informative without being bloated, though slightly dense in the field-enumeration 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?

Given an output schema exists and the input schema is fully self-describing, the description covers the essential operational context: batch limits, the dependency on orcid_get_works, per-record error handling, and the return payload composition. No critical gap prevents an agent from calling it correctly, though it could optionally name the output schema structure explicitly.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value on top by explaining that put_codes are sourced from the putCode field of orcid_get_works responses, providing provenance guidance that the schema alone lacks. This linkage helps the agent know where to retrieve the required input.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch full detail records for 1–100 works by their put-codes in a single request.' It clearly scopes the tool to bulk work detail retrieval, and distinguishes it from siblings by naming the input mechanism (put-codes) and the parent tool (orcid_get_works) that supplies them. An agent can immediately tell this apart from orcid_get_works, orcid_get_affiliations, or orcid_get_funding.

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 an implicit workflow: 'Put-codes are returned by orcid_get_works in the putCode field of each work entry,' which tells the agent that this tool depends on a prior orcid_get_works call. This provides clear contextual guidance on when to invoke the tool. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or 'use X instead of Y when' routing for the other siblings (affiliations, funding, peer reviews), so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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