oak_record

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the input format and that the result is one record; it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, what happens on missing identifiers, authentication needs, or any error conditions. The phrase 'One OAK record' is too vague to describe the tool's behavioral profile.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and immediately gives the critical identifier format in parentheses. Every word adds value, and the example formats improve clarity without bloating the text.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential input knowledge (identifier format) and the resource name. However, it lacks any usage context relative to sibling tools and does not state expected behavior or edge cases. It is minimally sufficient for invoking the tool, but not thoroughly contextual.

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 provides only a 'string' type and the title 'Identifier', with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the accepted input formats: full OAI identifier with prefix or bare number. This is essential semantic information for correct invocation.

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 identifies the resource (a single OAK record) and the key identifier format (OAI identifier or bare number). It implies a retrieval operation even though the verb is not explicit. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like kci_article and oak_harvest by naming OAK records and the identifier-based lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when you have an OAI identifier, but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the identifier format alone.

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