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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that no auth is required and mentions the underlying data source, which is useful but doesn't cover potential exceptions or error behavior. It aligns with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose and key fields, and efficiently includes the crucial dependency on openaire.products.search. It is one well-structured sentence followed by a brief data source note, with no fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, where the parameter comes from, and the auth-free nature. No gaps.

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 provides full description of product_id, including format and example. The description reiterates the source of the ID but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving full metadata for a specific OpenAIRE research product, including a concrete list of fields returned. It distinguishes itself from the sibling openaire.products.search by explicitly referencing the product_id obtained from that search, establishing a clear workflow.

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 explicitly instructs that the product_id comes from openaire.products.search results, providing a clear dependency and when to use this tool. It implies the alternative is the search tool, though it doesn't state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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