eperiodica_list_records

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool uses OAI-PMH, returns a list with metadata, and includes resumption_token and total count for pagination. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational details beyond the safety profile.

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 clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections and a front-loaded purpose. The background paragraph about e-periodica and the OAI identifier format is informative but not strictly necessary for invocation, adding slight verbosity. Overall, it is efficient and organized.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value, and the output schema and annotations provide additional structure and safety information. It lacks explicit guidance on distinguishing from sibling tools, but that is partially addressed by the repository-specific naming and context. The description is complete enough for invoking the tool correctly.

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 (from_date, until_date, set_spec, resumption_token, response_format) with brief one-line meanings, but the input schema already contains detailed descriptions for each, including examples, patterns, and notes on behavior (e.g., resumption_token overriding date filters). Thus the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score.

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 opens with 'Listet digitalisierte Zeitschriftenartikel und Periodika aus e-periodica (OAI-PMH)', clearly stating the verb (list), resource (digitized journal articles and periodicals), and repository (e-periodica). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like erara_list_records and emanuscripta_list_records, which target different repositories.

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 that this tool is for e-periodica and mentions the OAI-PMH protocol, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as erara_list_records or swisscovery_search. The sibling names themselves signal different repositories, but no direct comparisons or exclusionary guidance are given.

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