Get Record Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it returns version URLs, which is useful but does not go beyond the annotation's safety profile. It doesn't mention potential lack of filtering, pagination, or other behavioral traits. Since annotations cover the read-only nature, a moderate score is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that directlystates the action and result. It has no redundant words or filler, and the main information is front-loaded. Perfectly concise for its level of detail.

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?

With only one parameter and an output schema present, the description still lacks essential context about the identifier parameter. It also does not clarify how this tool fits with siblings or any usage constraints. Since the parameter is unexplained and no usage context is provided, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it confidently.

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 has a single parameter 'identifier' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. An agent has no information about what the identifier represents (e.g., a record ID, DOI, or something else) or its expected format, making it difficult to invoke correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('HEPData record versions'), and specifies the output includes 'version-specific record URLs'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_record (single record) and get_record_exports (exports). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when a version list is needed as opposed to a single record retrieval (get_record) or other sibling tools. No context or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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