emanuscripta_list_records

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral context: OAI-PMH source, pagination via resumption_token, and that using resumption_token overrides other filters. This extra detail is valuable.

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 purpose statement, context paragraph, and organized Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded but slightly verbose with the source description; could be tightened.

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?

Covers return fields (title, author, etc.) and pagination info. Given the output schema exists, the description adds useful details but does not address rate limits or edge cases like empty results. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 'Args' section in the description explains each parameter with examples (e.g., date format, set_spec examples), and clarifies the resumption_token override behavior. The schema also provides descriptions for sub-fields, but the description adds context beyond the schema, especially for set_spec referring to list_collections tool.

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 verb 'Listet' (lists) and the resource 'digitalisierte Handschriften und Archivalien aus e-manuscripta', distinguishing it from sibling tools like emanuscripta_get_record (single record) and emanuscripta_list_collections (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 advises using emanuscripta_list_collections() to get available sets, which provides precondition guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond that.

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