erara_list_records

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already signal safe read. The description adds that it returns markdown or JSON, includes resumption_token for pagination, and lists return fields. No contradictions.

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 header, context about e-rara, and a parameter listing. It is informative but could be slightly more concise by removing redundant lines.

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, return values, pagination, and related collections. Given the presence of an output schema, it is comprehensive and leaves no critical gaps.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by providing examples (e.g., '2020-01-01'), noting resumption_token overrides other params, and specifying the response_format options. The 0% schema coverage metric is likely inaccurate given the schema's own descriptions.

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 lists digitized historical printed works from e-rara via OAI-PMH. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like erara_get_record and other e-rara tools by specifying its listing functionality.

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 erara_list_collections to get available sets and lists known sets (e.g., 'zut', 'bau_1'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like emanuscripta_list_records to indicate when this tool is preferred.

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