common-get-archive-item

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the bar is lower and the description clears it: it adds the ordering semantic ('100 most recently archived entries') and discloses that the response carries the archive's total entry count, neither of which appears in the schema. It does not state permission requirements, which is the main remaining gap.

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 written sentences with the paging default front-loaded and the return payload appended compactly. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 read-only, paginated listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: ordering, default page size, and that a total count is returned (matching the schema's reference to 'Total'). Only the absence of any note on permissions or what an individual entry contains keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents first, skip, full and their defaults, making the description's restatement of the 100-entry default largely redundant. It adds no meaning for the less obvious parameters (itemId, identity), whose schema text reads as if copied from a different operation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Gets a page of the items found in the specified archive' — plus the secondary payload (total entry count), which clearly separates it from the item-listing siblings. It stops short of naming a specific sibling (e.g. common-get-archive, which lists archives rather than their entries), so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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?

It implicitly tells the agent how to page ('Returns the 100 most recently archived entries unless first/skip say otherwise'), which is real usage guidance for the paging parameters. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to common-get-archive or common-restore-archive-item, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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