Get archive options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it does not purchase or return keys, it requires authentication, and it explicitly lists what the tool provides (balance, resolutions, sizes, costs). This goes beyond what annotations offer and clarifies the tool's scope.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly improved by briefly noting input parameters, which would enhance structure without adding much length.

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?

The description covers the purpose and return content (balance, resolutions, sizes, costs), and an output schema exists to fill in return details. However, it does not explain how to specify the archive page (via gallery object or galleryUrl) or mention that both identification methods are available. This missing information reduces completeness for an agent selecting and invoking the 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema except for gid and token inside the nested object. The description does not explain how to identify the archive page via the parameters (site, gallery object, galleryUrl). It mentions 'archive page' but provides no mapping to input fields. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('archive page's balance, available resolutions, sizes, and costs'). It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly stating the tool does not purchase or return keys, and no other sibling tool appears to deal with archive options.

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 implies this tool should be used before purchasing an archive, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. There are no sibling tools for archive options, so differentiation isn't critical, but the description could still strengthen usage scenarios.

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