repository_oai

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two traits beyond that: resumptionToken is exclusive, and limit truncates the local batch output (a warning that results are cut, not an error). That truncation caveat is meaningful behavioral disclosure, but the telegraphic phrasing leaves pagination/continuation behavior unclear.

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?

Two short clauses, no filler, and the most unusual constraint (resumptionToken exclusivity) is front-loaded after the purpose. It is efficient to the point of being telegraphic and mixes languages, so it is compact but not fully parseable as structured guidance.

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?

This is an 8-parameter, enum-driven protocol tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. Covering only 2 of 8 parameters, with no explanation of how verb shapes the response, leaves an agent unable to call it correctly for anything but the simplest case.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It only touches resumptionToken (exclusive) and limit (truncating), leaving verb, metadataPrefix, set, from, until and identifier entirely unexplained — and the verb enum, which selects completely different operations, is never described. This is a significant gap against a 0%-coverage 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?

It names a specific verb and protocol ("Query OAI-PMH") plus a repository identifier ("UMB"), so the resource is identifiable to someone who knows OAI-PMH. However, "UMB" is opaque and nothing distinguishes this from the sibling repository_search or catalog_search tools. It is a vague-purpose score: the agent knows roughly what domain this touches but not exactly what it returns.

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?

"resumptionToken eksklusif" does convey one real usage constraint (the token cannot be combined with other parameters), which is genuinely helpful. But there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like repository_search, and no indication of which verb to pick for which task. One inline constraint is not usage guidance.

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