heritage_search_helveticat

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it performs client-side filtering via OAI-PMH, which clarifies that no server-side full-text search is supported. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of limitations.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args section and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool with several parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return format. It does not detail the output schema structure, but since an output schema exists (context signals indicate true), this is acceptable. Missing: example usage or note on when to use JSON vs markdown output.

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 schema description coverage being 0% per context signals, the description provides a detailed, parameter-by-parameter breakdown (query, set_spec, dates, limit, response_format) with clear semantics and examples. This compensates fully for any missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description starts with 'Durchsucht die Schweizerische Nationalbibliothek (Helveticat) via OAI-PMH', clearly stating the verb, resource, and method. This distinguishes it from siblings like heritage_cross_search or heritage_search_museum_datasets, which target different collections or engines.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for searching the National Library catalog but offers no exclusion criteria or guidance on sibling tools. A simple note like 'Use for Helveticat searches only' would improve clarity.

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