hepdata_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists tables, resources, and flags pyhf likelihoods. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a GET-like tool this is acceptable. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, second adds key detail. No redundant words. Efficient and clear.

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 a single parameter and existing output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and return structure well. However, it omits mention of error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid ID).

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 provides an example (1748602) and explains that the parameter is an INSPIRE record ID, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. Could specify format more precisely.

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 it fetches a HEPData record by INSPIRE ID, lists data tables and resources, and flags statistical models. It distinguishes from siblings like hepdata_download_likelihood which downloads a specific likelihood.

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 implicitly conveys usage (fetch metadata for a record), but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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