Get an EDI data package

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the returned surface and the flexible identifier forms (package id, series, DOI, portal/PASTA URL, scope). It stops short of auth/rate-limit or resolution-failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the return contents, then accepted inputs, then the next-step routing — a logical order with no filler. It is somewhat dense and repeats schema-level input details, which keeps it from a 5.

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 enumerating return fields is technically redundant, but it aids selection; the description covers inputs, sibling routing, and scope. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description largely restates them ('series (newest unless revision is set)', 'site codes or scope names'). The 'newest unless revision is set' default interaction is mildly clarifying but duplicates the schema's own note, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one package revision) and enumerates exactly what the overview contains: title, publication date, creators, license, DOI, URLs, newest-revision flag, and data entities with sizes. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing at edi_get_metadata and edi_list_entities.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Next: call edi_get_metadata for the full description or edi_list_entities for columns', naming both alternatives and the condition that selects each. It also states the accepted identifier forms, so the agent knows when this tool is applicable.

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