heritage_get_publication

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the return content (full DC metadata: title, author, publisher, etc.) and the response format choice, though it does not disclose potential error conditions.

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 (two sentences plus an Args block and Returns line) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every part is necessary and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter), the presence of annotations, and the absence of a complex output schema, the description provides sufficient information for correct usage: input source, format options, and output content.

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 reiterates the two parameters (identifier and response_format) from the input schema, which already have descriptions in the schema. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, resulting in minimal added value.

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 it retrieves full Dublin Core metadata of a specific publication. It distinguishes from siblings like heritage_search_helveticat (which searches) and heritage_browse_collection (which browses) by being a detail retrieval tool based on an OAI identifier.

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 the identifier comes from heritage_search_helveticat, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling context makes the differentiation clear.

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