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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that the result includes image and thumbnail URLs specific to manuscript/early-print sources, but it does not describe edge cases like missing images or how the passage reference resolves.

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 focused sentence with concrete examples (Vilna Shas, Venice 1523, Munich manuscript) and no redundant wording. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's output and scope.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits the reference format and any direction about when this tool is appropriate versus other image or text tools. The annotations cover safety, so the main gap is usage and ref semantics.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining the 'ref' parameter. It only says 'for a passage,' which gives a rough semantic hint but does not specify the expected reference format, syntax, or supported passage types.

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 conveys a specific resource—images of manuscripts and early printed editions—for a given passage, including image and thumbnail URLs. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_text_image, but the examples and scope make the tool's purpose easy to identify.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_text_image or get_book_info. It only says 'for a passage,' leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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