mek_get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is for fetching metadata (a read operation) and lists what is returned. It does not mention destructive behavior or auth requirements, but for a simple get-record tool, this is adequate and transparent.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and returns, the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded and every sentence is informative without waste.

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 simple get-record tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's functionality, when to use it, and lists the return fields (mek_id, url, title, themes, subjects, description, date_added, urn), which compensates for the lack of an explicit output schema in the description.

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?

There is only one parameter (mek_id_or_url) with 100% schema description coverage. The description reiterates the parameter's purpose (MEK identifier or URL) but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 metadata of a single MEK record, listing specific fields like title, authors, themes, subjects, description, dates, identifiers. It also provides usage examples (inspect/classify hits) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search, browse) by focusing on individual record retrieval.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to inspect / classify individual hits', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the specific use case make the intended usage clear.

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