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

The description states the tool retrieves metadata and returns JSON-LD as a formatted string. Although no annotations are provided, the description sufficiently conveys that this is a read-only operation. It could mention error handling or rate limits but is adequate for a simple retrieval 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, using 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections to separate parameter details and output information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists (mentioned), and the description covers required parameters, optional parameters with defaults, and the return format. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the item_id parameter (CRID, example, URL context) and the lang parameter (default, values). This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare property definitions.

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 'Retrieve metadata for a single CiNii Research item by its ID', specifying the action, resource, and scope. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'search_cinii', which presumably searches for multiple items, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool is for retrieving a single item by ID, which implies usage when the ID is known. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'search_cinii' or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It covers parameters and return format, but omits potential issues like rate limits, authentication, or error conditions. It explains it's a search (likely read-only) but lacks depth.

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 very concise, with a clear title sentence and well-structured Arg list. Every sentence provides useful information, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers parameters well and states the return format. It lacks information on error handling or prerequisites, but for a search tool this is fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, valid ranges (e.g., count 1–200), and the resource_type options. However, it could be more detailed for enums or exact formats.

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 the action ('Search'), the resource ('CiNii Research'), and the scope ('academic articles, books, grants, and data'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_cinii_item' which likely retrieves a single item.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies broad search, but lacks direct comparison to 'get_cinii_item' or conditions for use.

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