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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: a detailed inventory of returned metadata (creators, ORCID, license, stats, communities, etc.), the fact that file download links are NOT included (requiring a separate call), and the semantics of the record ID. This is rich behavioral context on top of an already well-covered annotation set.

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 well-organized: a front-loaded purpose sentence, a compact inventory of return fields, then routing guidance to the two sibling tools. It is only slightly longer than necessary because the field enumeration partially duplicates what the output schema already declares, but every sentence still earns its place for agent selection and invocation.

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-only, idempotent lookup with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema present, the description is fully complete. It covers what is returned, how to obtain the record_id (search or DOI conversion), and what follow-up call to make for files. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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%: the schema's record_id description already explains the numeric ID, the DOI suffix form, and how to find IDs via zenodo.records.search. The tool description repeats the same DOI-extraction example but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full load.

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 (Get), a well-defined resource (full metadata for a specific Zenodo research record), and the addressing mechanism (numeric record ID). It is clearly distinguishable from closely related siblings like zenodo.records.search (finding IDs) and zenodo.records.files (listing files), which the description names explicitly.

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 explicit routing: use zenodo.records.search to find record IDs, extract the ID from a DOI using a concrete example (10.5281/zenodo.10487285 → 10487285), and follow up with zenodo.records.files to list downloadable files. This is exactly the when-to-use and how-to-chain guidance an agent needs, with named alternatives.

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