list_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that includeStats triggers secondary API calls, that certain count fields are unavailable, and describes the Elasticsearch-based full-text search behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then details in a logical order. It is concise, covering essentials without unnecessary elaboration. A slight improvement could separate usage from behavioral notes, but overall effective.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params), the description covers search, filtering, returned fields, stats limitations, and missing counts. It lacks explicit pagination behavior (e.g., how page_size works) but is otherwise thorough.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains query matches name/alternateName/description, clarifies clientType values and filtering, describes providerId filtering, and details includeStats behavior and cost. With only 20% schema coverage, this is highly valuable.

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 it lists DataCite repositories and data centers with search and filtering. It specifies supported search and filtering options, distinguishing it from siblings like get_repository which likely handles single entities.

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 implicitly guides usage by detailing capabilities (search, filter) and limitations (missing counts, secondary calls for stats). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings but the context makes it clear this is for listing.

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