Get JSON-LD

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description faces a low bar. 'Fetch' aligns with the read-only profile and there is no contradiction. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the annotations, which warrants the baseline 3 rather than higher.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place; 'HEPData record' scopes the domain immediately.

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 is simple (one flat string parameter) and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is covered. However, the ambiguous 'identifier' semantics and the absence of any usage guidance leave the definition incomplete for a new agent.

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 must compensate by explaining the single 'identifier' parameter — but it never says what form it takes (record ID, DOI, access key, etc.). With coverage at 0%, the description fails to carry the burden for the one parameter it has.

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'), a resource ('JSON-LD metadata'), and a target ('a HEPData record'), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_record or get_record_exports — an agent cannot tell what makes the JSON-LD variant distinct without inspecting the schema or output 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of its 8 siblings, particularly get_record. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative names mentioned, so the agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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