Get an INSPIRE literature record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool resolves multiple identifier types (recid, DOI, arXiv), which is useful behavioral context beyond the read-only hint.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or fluff.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks information about the detail levels and identifier_type auto-detection, which may leave an agent uncertain about optional parameters. Sibling differentiation is minimal, though the purpose alone is fairly clear.

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 only 33%. The description repeats the identifier types already in the schema but does not explain the 'detail' parameter (compact/standard/detailed) or the 'identifier_type' auto-detection behavior. This leaves a significant gap for agents needing to choose appropriate parameter values.

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 tool reads a single literature record using specific identifier types (INSPIRE recid, DOI, or arXiv identifier). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_literature or list_literature_authors.

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 the tool is used when you have a specific identifier and need the corresponding record, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident for an AI agent.

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