oak_harvest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the ~99-record cap, the absence of resumptionToken, the explicit self-reporting behavior when the cap is hit, and the refusal to present a truncated window as complete. It also discloses the dominant-holding-organization reporting behavior, which exceeds typical expectations.

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 front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter format, then limits and behavior. The paragraphs are longer than minimal but every sentence adds operational value—technical details like no resumptionToken and the verified date justify the length.

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 description covers the purpose, required parameters, operational limits, and result caveats, while an output schema exists to handle return values. It is slightly incomplete because 'contains' is not explained and no explicit routing to sibling tools is provided, but the core invocation is fully specified.

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. It clearly defines date_from and date_to as YYYY-MM-DD ingest datestamps, which is essential. However, the optional 'contains' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one parameter semantically unexplained.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Harvest'), target ('Open Access Korea'), method ('by OAI-PMH'), and a key requirement ('no API key required'). This clearly differentiates it from the KCI-oriented sibling tools even though no sibling is named.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: ingest-date windows, YYYY-MM-DD format, no set hierarchy, no resumptionToken, and the need to narrow the window when the cap is hit. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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