eperiodica_get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the exact return content (Dublin-Core metadata fields) and the identifier format, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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 concise and well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It front-loads the main purpose and each sentence contributes relevant information without redundancy.

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-only get_record tool, the description covers the source of identifiers, the input parameters, and the return format. The annotations provide safety semantics, and the output schema (if present) likely covers return structure. This is complete given 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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters with examples, the tool description explicitly lists them and restates the response_format options and identifier pattern. This reinforces the schema info and adds the formatted pattern string, which slightly exceeds the schema coverage.

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 fetches a single journal article from e-periodica ('Ruft einen einzelnen Zeitschriftenartikel aus e-periodica ab'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eperiodica_list_records (listing) and other get_record tools for different platforms (erara, emanuscripta).

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 explains that OAI identifiers come from eperiodica_list_records results, providing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the connection to the sibling tool offers strong contextual guidance.

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