get_repository

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully explains behavior: it notes that includeStats triggers a secondary API call, that doiCount may be null if that call fails, and explicitly states limitations ('per-client view/download/citation counts are not exposed').

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences and a note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds detail without redundancy.

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, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how to use it, what data it returns, and limitations. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing returned fields in the description.

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 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for both parameters, though it restates the purpose of includeStats.

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 action ('Retrieve full metadata'), the resource ('a single DataCite repository'), and the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_repositories' tool by focusing on a single repository by 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?

The description provides guidance on discovering IDs using 'list_repositories' and explains the optional 'includeStats' parameter. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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