Get Record

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the dual-mode behavior (metadata vs full JSON) but does not explain how that is controlled or what version selection does. It offers some value beyond the annotations by hinting at the light/version parameters, but lacks specifics about response shape or edge cases.

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 one efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and the two output modes. For its length, it is perfectly concise, though brevity comes at the cost of parameter clarity.

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?

With three parameters (one required), an output schema, and no schema coverage in the description, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to construct a valid request: what identifier format is expected, how light and version affect the response, or how this tool fits with siblings. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but operational usage is underspecified.

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. It only hints that the tool can return 'metadata or full record JSON', which loosely maps to the light boolean, but it does not mention the identifier parameter (required) or the version parameter at all. No meaning is added for these fields beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess what a null version means or how the required identifier is used.

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 it fetches HEPData record data and distinguishes two modes: metadata or full record JSON. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_records (which finds records) and get_record_versions (which lists versions), but it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The verb 'Fetch' plus the resource 'HEPData record' is specific, though the distinction between metadata and full JSON is not mapped to the light parameter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its siblings. It does not state that this is for retrieving a specific record by identifier, nor does it mention alternatives like get_record_exports or get_record_versions. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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