get_software

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool is for reading metadata (non-destructive), but it does not disclose potential error behavior (e.g., invalid ID) or any authentication needs. This is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, though the format is slightly more verbose than necessary.

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 (one required parameter, no nested objects, has output schema), the description covers the core functionality, argument, and return fields adequately. It is complete enough for an agent to use without confusion.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'software_id' is 'the numeric swMath software identifier'. The schema only specifies type integer, so the description provides necessary context. Schema coverage is 0%, making this compensation important.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'metadata for a zbMath / swMath software entry by its numeric ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_author' or 'search_documents'.

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 implies usage when a numeric software ID is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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