heritage_get_publication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns complete Dublin Core metadata, which is useful but not critical beyond annotations. 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 concise—two clear sentences followed by a compact Args/Returns block—with no redundant information. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 simple input (one required param with a default optional format) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value as a string of Dublin Core metadata. It does not discuss error handling, but that is not critical for this level of completeness.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (identifier and response_format), so the tool description's Args block adds little new information. Schema description coverage is effectively high, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 complete Dublin Core metadata of a publication from the Swiss National Library ('NB'). This distinguishes it from siblings like heritage_search_helveticat (search) and heritage_get_artist (artist details), providing a specific verb+resource combination.

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 use after a search to get detailed metadata, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance. Given clear sibling differentiation and the context of a retrieval tool, the implied usage is sufficient.

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