erara_get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the identifier format and the return content (Dublin-Core metadata), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sections: purpose, identifier source/format, arguments, and return value. Every sentence provides useful information, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 single-record retrieval tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, where identifiers come from, what parameters to pass, and what the return value contains. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for return-structure details. It is complete within its scope.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: oai_identifier and response_format, including the allowed values ('markdown' or 'json') and an example identifier format. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which though also descriptive, is reinforced by the tool description.

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 'Ruft ein einzelnes digitalisiertes Druckwerk aus e-rara ab' (retrieves a single digitized work from e-rara), specifying the exact action, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools and other repository get_record tools.

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 explicitly mentions that OAI identifiers come from erara_list_records results, giving a clear workflow context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like eperiodica_get_record, so it falls short of a full usage guideline.

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