core_output_detail_by_id

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly identifies the operation as a read-only 'Fetch', states that it returns a single item, explains the raw/de-duplicated nature of an output, and documents the numeric id requirement. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but those are less critical for a simple lookup and the core behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently builds context: output-vs-work distinction, usage criteria, and id constraint. Every sentence adds actionable information; there is no filler 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?

For a one-parameter detail lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the resource, gives the selection criteria, names the alternative tool, specifies the required id type, and indicates a single-item return with useful example fields. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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 only provides `output_id` as a string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that `output_id` must be numeric and that it identifies a CORE output record. It could be more explicit about the exact integer format or how to obtain the id, but the essential semantic is clear.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and access path: 'Fetch one raw CORE harvesting record (`output`) by numeric id.' It goes further to distinguish `output` from `work`, and names the sibling tool `core_work_detail_by_identifier` for the merged record, so an agent can tell this tool apart from related search/detail tools.

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 says to call this tool when per-repository detail is needed, provides concrete fields (`license`, `repositories`, `sdg`, `fulltext_status`, `source_fulltext_urls`), and directs users to the works tools for the paper-level record. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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