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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that the record comes from INSPIRE, but does not disclose behavior beyond that. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, and it conveys the essential purpose concisely. No waste.

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?

The tool has only one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, so the description doesn't need to explain return values or safety. However, it lacks any context about when to use this tool compared to other search-oriented siblings. For a one-record lookup, the functionality is clear, but the missing usage guidance prevents a higher score.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly mentions 'INSPIRE record id,' which clarifies that record_id is an INSPIRE record identifier. However, it does not explain the format, range, or whether it expects a numeric ID beyond the schema's type 'number' and example. This modest clarification earns a midpoint score.

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 'Single literature record by INSPIRE record id,' clearly identifying the resource (literature record) and the key (INSPIRE record id). Though no explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' is present, the phrasing implies retrieval. It distinguishes from sibling tools like authors_search or search by focusing on a single record identified by a specific ID.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where a user should use this instead of search or authors_search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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