swisscovery_get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the return format (Markdown MARC entry) and the fields included (title, author, etc.), giving the agent a clear expectation of the output without contradicting 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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a source note, a clear Args section, and a Returns section with a field list. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers all essentials: what it does, where the ID comes from, the return format, and the content of the response. With output schema and annotations already present, no additional context is needed.

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?

Despite the context signal showing 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining mms_id with a concrete example ('991134165199705501') and stating its source (swisscovery_search results). The single parameter is richly described, making it easy for the agent to supply correct input.

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's action: 'Ruft einen einzelnen Titel aus swisscovery via MMS-ID ab' (fetches a single title from swisscovery via MMS-ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like erara_get_record or eperiodica_get_record by specifying the swisscovery source and the MMS-ID mechanism.

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 states that the MMS-ID is taken from swisscovery_search results, giving clear context on when to use this tool (after a search). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the dependency on search results is a strong usage signal.

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