europeana_get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the API key requirement and gives an example ID, but does not mention return format, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. For a fetch tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The API key note is concise and relevant. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, required auth, and an ID example. It lacks explicit return-value details, but for a fetch operation the return is implied. Overall, it's sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 schema has no description for recordId (0% coverage), but the description provides an example value ('/2048128/618580') that clarifies the expected format. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type string, though it could further explain where to find the ID.

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 a specific action ('Fetch') on a specific resource ('a Europeana record by ID'), with an example ID format. This distinguishes it from the sibling europeana_search tool, which is for searching rather than fetching 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 implies the tool is for retrieving a known record by ID, which contrasts with the search tool. It also notes the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you have an ID' or mention alternatives, so it's clear context without explicit exclusions.

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