eperiodica_list_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context such as the OAI-PMH protocol, parameter overriding behavior (resumption_token ignores date/set), and return format with pagination token. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful operational details.

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 lead sentence, background context, parameter list, and return description. It front-loads the purpose but includes some background (Geschichte von e-periodica) that could be trimmed. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers return values (list with pagination). It explains the OAI identifier format and parameter behavior. However, it lacks error handling details or limitations (e.g., rate limits), but for a read-only list tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters (from_date, until_date, set_spec, resumption_token, response_format) with brief explanations and includes the OAI identifier format, which is not in the schema. While the explanations are concise, they add clarity beyond the schema's property names and constraints.

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 explicitly states it lists digitalisierte Zeitschriftenartikel und Periodika aus e-periodica via OAI-PMH, with a specific scope (über 1 Million Artikel aus Schweizer Zeitschriften 1750–heute). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like erara_list_records by naming the source 'e-periodica' and providing the OAI-identifier format, making the tool's purpose clear and specific.

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 implies usage for Swiss digitalized periodicals by naming 'e-periodica', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like erara_list_records or emanuscripta_list_records. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving selection criteria implicit.

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