emanuscripta_get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return value as 'Vollständige Dublin-Core-Metadaten' and lists the included fields (title, author, date, etc.), plus it explains the provenance of identifiers. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a note on identifier origin, and separate Args/Returns sections. It is reasonably concise, though the Args section repeats schema property descriptions. No unnecessary fluff, and the most important information (what it does, where identifiers come from) is front-loaded.

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 (single object fetch, two parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, input source, identifier format, and return content. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for this type of read-only tool. Annotations cover safety profile, and the output schema likely describes the return structure further.

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 schema descriptions for both parameters are present, but the tool description adds meaning by explaining that the oai_identifier originates from list_records and providing a concrete format example. It also clarifies the response_format options ('markdown' oder 'json') and the default. This compensates for the reported 0% schema coverage and adds value beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Ruft ab' = retrieve), a specific resource ('einzelnes Handschriften-Objekt' = single manuscript object), and a specific source ('e-manuscripta'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools by emphasizing 'einzelnes' (single) and from sibling get_record tools by naming the platform.

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 clear context for usage by explaining that OAI identifiers come from emanuscripta_list_records and giving the identifier format. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a simple fetch operation.

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