erara_list_records

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful context: it lists return fields (title, author, date, publisher, type, URL), pagination via resumption_token, and total count. It also clarifies the response_format option. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, context, collection guidance, Args, and Returns. It is not overly verbose, though the repetition of collection examples in both the description and schema is somewhat redundant.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's role: listing records with filter options, pagination, and output formats. It lacks only explicit error/edge-case behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool with rich schema, this is adequate.

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 enumerates all parameters with brief semantics and provides additional collection examples ('bge_g', 'stibi') beyond the schema's examples. The schema has detailed descriptions for each nested property, but the tool text effectively summarizes and supplements them, acting as a quick reference.

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 historische Druckwerke aus e-rara (OAI-PMH)', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from siblings like erara_get_record (single record retrieval) and erara_list_collections (listing collections). It also provides context about the collection contents and known sets.

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 states that available set_specs can be retrieved with erara_list_collections, pointing to an alternative tool for that part. It gives examples of collections and mentions OAI-PMH, which implies this is for listing records. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over erara_get_record or exclude cases where other tools are preferred.

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