landis_metadata_get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds value by specifying the exact content returned (metadata, provenance notes, linked resources), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (one meaningful parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given zero schema coverage, the description should have described the productId parameter to make the tool self-explanatory. It is functionally adequate but leaves the parameter undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the productId parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, nor does it clarify that productId identifies the product whose metadata is retrieved. The description only references 'product metadata' without linking it to the parameter.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (LandIS product metadata), and further specifies the content: metadata, provenance notes, and linked resources. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like landis_catalog_list_products (which lists products) and landis_archive_get_item (which retrieves archive items) by focusing on metadata for a specific product.

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 usage when metadata for a specific LandIS product is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. It lacks explicit routing guidance such as 'use this instead of landis_catalog_list_products when you have a product ID.'

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