ipt_get_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is a read/fetch and describes the output summary, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., if the dataset is not published), authentication requirements, or rate limits, which would be valuable for a metadata-fetching 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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the summary fields. Every word earns its place with no 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 simple one-parameter fetch tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, the resource, and the return summary. However, it lacks explicit guidance on error cases (e.g., unpublished dataset) and does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools like ipt_get_draft_eml, which would help an agent choose correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'shortname' parameter. The description adds context that the shortname refers to a published dataset, but it does not add format details beyond the schema's pattern. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a published dataset's EML') and lists the summary fields returned. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like ipt_get_draft_eml or ipt_get_metadata_form, which are related but distinct.

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 implies usage for published datasets by specifying 'published dataset's EML', which hints at when to use it versus draft EML tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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