Get a site's BADM metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: emails are suppressed unless the server's privacy.allow_contact_emails permits them, and instruments include measurement heights. It stops short of describing pagination behavior for the reference-paper list, which the limit/offset params imply.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then the BIF alternative, then the next-step routing. The long enumeration is dense but every item maps to a real returned section; nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete for a read tool, with only the paginated nature of the reference-paper section left implicit.

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 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description reinforces the section grouping used by `include` and the default email suppression for `include_contacts`, but adds nothing about `variables` filtering syntax or about how `references_limit`/`references_offset` paginate, leaving those to the schema.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair (get a site's BADM metadata) and then enumerates the exact sections returned (location, IGBP/climate, tower dates, team, disturbance, funding, references, instruments), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like amf_read_bif or amf_get_site. It also flags what is not included by default ('team (no emails by default)').

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 full BADM ships as the BIF file in BASE-BADM downloads' implicitly routes the agent to amf_read_bif for the complete record, and 'Next: call amf_get_citation to cite the site' gives an explicit follow-up step. There is no explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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