Get archive options

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explicitly noting that no purchase or archive-key consumption occurs, and by indicating the operation reflects the authenticated user's balance. This goes beyond a generic read-only declaration, though it omits details like error or rate-limit behavior.

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 entire description is one tight sentence that front-loads the key behavior and result contents, followed by an explicit non-side-effect guarantee. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Combined with a rich input schema, an output schema, and annotations indicating safe read-only behavior, the description fully covers what the tool does and its side-effect profile. Nothing critical needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool is missing.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the site, gallery object, and galleryUrl parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact resource ('authenticated archive page's balance, available resolutions, sizes, and costs'), while explicitly noting it does not purchase or return archive keys. This clearly distinguishes it from the many read-oriented sibling tools like eh_get_gallery_detail or eh_get_all_gallery_pages.

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 phrase 'without purchasing or returning archive keys' clearly frames this as a pre-purchase inspection tool for archive options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when this tool is relevant.

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