get_heritage_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations, notably that protected full texts (Dodis transcriptions) are not reproduced and the response links to the permalink instead. It also discloses the response format options (markdown/json), improving transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, using an Args/Returns layout. It front-loads the main action, adds a key caveat, and lists parameters in a compact way. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 core functionality, supported collections, output contents, protected-text behavior, and response formats. Minor gaps include no mention of error handling or default response_format, but given the presence of annotations and an output schema, the overall context is adequate for correct tool usage.

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 schema description coverage being 0%, the description's Args section summarizes all three parameters (collection, item_id, response_format) with their valid values and clarifies that item_id originates from search_heritage. While it omits the schema's concrete examples, it provides a functional overview that helps the agent understand parameter roles.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Ruft die vollständigen Metadaten eines Objekts aus Memobase oder Dodis ab.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search and list tools by targeting single-object metadata retrieval, and further specifies that it returns permalink, license, provenance, and a caveat about protected full texts.

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 the expected workflow by stating that item_id comes from 'search_heritage', which gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'don't use for full-text extraction'), so it falls just short of full explicit guidance.

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