detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Fetch' signals a read-only retrieval and 'full metadata' hints at the payload breadth. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for invalid URLs, pagination, or what the 'channel' selector affects, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple (2 params). Still, an agent lacks guidance on obtaining the URL, the meaning of `channel`, and failure modes, which for a zero-annotation tool leaves the definition only minimally sufficient.

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% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: 'detail URL' adds meaning to the `url` parameter (implying it comes from a listing/search result). The `channel` parameter (default 'cnki') is never mentioned, leaving half the schema undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch full metadata for one record.' That is clearer than the bare name 'detail' and implies a single-record read, distinguishing it in spirit from the list-oriented sibling 'search'. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, keeping it below a 5.

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 phrase 'by its detail URL' implies a prerequisite (you must already have a detail URL, presumably obtained from search), but the description never states when to use this tool versus search, export, or status, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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