Harvest PhilArchive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the rate limit (2 req/sec) and the side effect of updating the local cache, but it omits details about return format, error handling, or idempotency, which are important for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 a concise three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value: purpose, rate limit, and usage context. There is no unnecessary detail.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description is responsible for explaining return values. It does not state what the agent can expect in response (e.g., harvested records, status, or count), nor does it discuss error conditions. While it covers purpose and rate limit, the lack of behavioral details makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (from_date, max_records) including defaults and bounds. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 specific verb 'harvest' and resource 'papers from PhilArchive OAI-PMH', with 'incrementally' indicating scope. This distinguishes it from sibling search/get tools, which focus on individual paper retrieval rather than batch cache updates.

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 phrase 'Run periodically to update local cache' gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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