emanuscripta_get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing the return format (Dublin-Core metadata fields), providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, with clear sections for purpose, input, and output. Every sentence is informative and well-structured, with no unnecessary words.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: how to get identifiers, input parameters with examples, and the structure of the return value. It is fully complete for a retrieval 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?

The description lists the parameters (oai_identifier and response_format) with brief explanations, but these largely restate the schema's own descriptions. Although schema coverage is low (0% per context), the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each field, so the description adds marginal value.

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 retrieves a single manuscript object from e-manuscripta, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like emanuscripta_list_records and other get_record tools for different collections.

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 provides context by specifying that OAI identifiers come from emanuscripta_list_records and gives the identifier format. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the sibling context makes the usage clear.

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