get_metadata

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

No annotations provided. The description details what data is retrieved but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or side effects. It lacks disclosure about whether the operation is safe or destructive.

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 well-structured with clear sections: summary, important note, workflow, and use cases. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details but covers all needed information for tool selection: what it does, how to use it, and prerequisites. It completes the picture for the user.

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 coverage is 100% with only one parameter 'openaire_id'. The description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining the parameter format and giving an extraction workflow from find_related_research results, including an example.

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 tool retrieves comprehensive metadata from OpenAIRE Research Graph, listing specific use cases like getting abstracts, author information, access rights, etc. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'find_related_research' by noting that it requires an OpenAIRE ID, not a DOI.

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 explicit workflow steps: first use find_related_research to get citations, extract OpenAIRE ID, then use this tool. It also lists when to use this tool (for abstracts, authors, etc.), implying when not to use it (when only need citations).

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