Get Resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the shape of the payload (facets, provider metrics, README/card excerpt, publications with relationship types) and the cross-tool handoff to get_paper.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and input contract, then the return contents. The mid-section becomes a long comma-separated enumeration of response fields, some of which the output schema already carries, so a few tokens are not fully earning their place.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are covered: what the resource types are, the accepted identifier formats, what comes back, and how to chain into get_paper. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter — and it does, specifying both an art_... artifact ID and a URL form embedding that ID. It could be stronger by noting failure behavior for malformed IDs or non-Lacuna URLs.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (Lacuna research resource), then immediately disambiguates what a 'resource' is by enumerating its four types (repository, dataset, model, demo). No sibling tool targets the same object, so the agent can route here without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the two acceptable input forms (art_... ID or a /resource/<slug>/art_... URL) and gives a concrete follow-on path: pass a returned publications paper_id to get_paper. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this' or a pointer back to search_lacuna for discovering IDs, which keeps it below a 5.

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