maritime_get_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation retrieving metadata, specifies the return format (JSON or text), and lists the content. No side effects are implied. A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that it does not modify data, but given the context it's clear.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, bulleted list of returned info, parameter descriptions, return format, and a dedicated tips section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the key information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (organisation, coverage period, etc.). It also provides tips for usage and archive meanings, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that archive_id takes values like das, voc_crew, voc_cargo, maarer, and that output_mode defaults to 'json'. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 explicitly states 'Get detailed metadata for a specific maritime archive' and lists the specific metadata fields returned (organisation, coverage period, record types, etc.), making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like maritime_list_archives.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section provides explicit guidance: use maritime_list_archives first to see valid IDs, and explains the purpose of each archive. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool and what parameters to supply.

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