heritage_search_helveticat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds context about OAI-PMH and client-side filtering, which implies no server-side full-text search. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 structured with clear Args and Returns sections, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or 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?

Given the rich schema and output schema existence, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It explains return format and parameter roles, but misses details like pagination or OAI-PMH limitations, which are minor gaps.

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 input schema already has detailed descriptions for all parameters (coverage is actually high despite context signal of 0% which likely counts only top-level). The description largely repeats this information, adding minor value like 'clientseitige Filterung'.

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 verb 'Durchsucht' (searches) and the specific resource 'Schweizerische Nationalbibliothek (Helveticat) via OAI-PMH'. It also lists parameters and return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like heritage_search_artists.

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 mentions that set_spec comes from heritage_list_nb_collections, implying a relationship, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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