get_eric_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Fetch' indicates a read-only operation, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, error handling, rate limits) is disclosed. This is adequate for a simple lookup but not richer than the bare minimum.

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: a single sentence defining the action and a short Args block. Every element serves a purpose with no redundancy or 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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers the purpose, the parameter, and an example. An output schema is present, so return values are documented separately. No further context is necessary for reasonable use.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter in the Args section: 'The ERIC document identifier, e.g. "EJ1234567" or "ED123456".' It provides clear meaning and examples, adding significant value beyond the schema's minimal type/title.

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 ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('full ERIC metadata') with a clear scope ('a single record by its ERIC ID'). It also gives an example ID format, making it easy to distinguish from sibling search tools like search_eric or crossref getters.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when you have a known ERIC ID and need the full metadata for that single record. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context (single record vs. search) 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.