get_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says it returns 'full metadata' and notes schema card existence, but doesn't disclose the return format despite an output schema existing, doesn't describe failure modes (nonexistent id), read-only nature, or access requirements.

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 compact (two sentences plus an Args section). It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter retrieval tool. Minor inefficiency: 'Args' section slightly redundant given the one parameter, but the sourcing hint justifies it.

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 single-param tool, it's fairly complete. An output schema exists, so return format is covered there. Gaps: no guidance on alternatives among siblings, no mention of error handling for invalid ids, and no explicit read-only disclosure (though annotations are absent). Reasonable but not thorough.

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 must compensate. It explains the single parameter 'id' is 'Archive id from search_archives', which tells the agent exactly where to source the value — meaningful semantic context beyond the bare property name 'Id' in the 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 has a specific verb+resource ('Get full metadata for one archive by id') and distinguishes itself by specifying the scope (single archive by id, includes schema card existence). It's clear this is an individual-item retrieval tool, distinct from search_archives which lists/filters.

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 only usage guidance is 'id: Archive id from search_archives' which indicates where ids come from. There's no guidance on when to use this vs. get_schema_card, list_archive_files, or get_data_access, no stated alternatives or exclusions.

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