get_report

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds useful context about accepted identifier formats and the raw Dublin Core content. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as not-found behavior or normalization, though the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core purpose and then immediately give the parameter formats and content guarantee. There is no repetition of schema or annotation information and no filler.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool returns and what the parameter can be. The only missing piece is explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over its siblings, but the low complexity and rich annotations keep this from being a major gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by specifying the accepted forms of the single 'id' parameter: dot-prefixed, bare numeric, OAI identifier, or ROSA-P landing URL. This is essential information an agent would otherwise lack, and it directly clarifies the parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource as a metadata record for one report and states it includes every raw Dublin Core field, which clearly conveys what the tool returns. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_reports and get_fulltext, but it never explicitly names an alternative or explains how it differs from them.

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 implies the tool is used when a specific report identifier is available and full metadata is needed, but it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance. Sibling names such as search_reports, lookup, and get_fulltext signal neighboring use cases, but the description does not route between them.

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