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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: pagination mechanics (586 pages, 25 per page), the absence of any query API, and an enumeration of the fields returned in each row — important since there is no output schema.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler: the first front-loads scope and scale, the second covers row contents and the browse-only limitation. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the per-row fields (regional archive, archive name, fond number, fond name, historical names with date ranges, inclusive dates). Combined with page size and the no-query constraint, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'page' parameter is fully documented in the schema (range 1-586, 25 per page, default 1). The description repeats these facts rather than adding syntax or boundary behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Browse the fonds register of the National Archives of Georgia') and quantifies the corpus, so an agent immediately knows this is a paginated register viewer rather than a search endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like archives_film_search and archives_library_search, which target different collections.

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?

'Browse only: the register has no query API' tells the agent that no filtering/search alternative exists for this corpus, which is a real usage constraint. It does not, however, explicitly route between this tool and the other archives_* siblings.

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