Read a Fold3 record

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

Annotations already flag the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond that: FILE paging behavior, dropped '[Blank]' fields, per-page imageId exposure, account-level viewability, and MEMORIAL's linked Ancestry records. This gives an agent an accurate model of what the tool actually returns and how it behaves.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses a clean bullet structure to cover each type without redundancy. Every sentence and bullet earns its place; the length is justified by the tool's five distinct record types.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so thoroughly for every type. It also covers input alternatives, paging, and the boundary with fold3_download. An agent has enough information to select the correct parameters and interpret each record type's response.

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 schema already describes every parameter at 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond those descriptions: id+type can be replaced by url, type values map to different response shapes, SUB_IMAGE returns imageId and line, and MEMORIAL provides collectionId + recordId for ancestry_record. This materially helps an agent construct correct calls.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair, 'Read one Fold3 document,' and immediately distinguishes the supported variants (FILE, IMAGE, INDEX_RECORD, SUB_IMAGE, MEMORIAL). It is specific and differentiates from siblings like fold3_download by stating images themselves come from that tool.

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 clearly explains the input modes ('id + type' or 'url') and routes image retrieval to fold3_download with an explicit statement: 'Images themselves come from fold3_download.' It does not exhaustively enumerate when not to use other siblings such as fold3_search or fold3_session, but the intended usage context is strongly implied.

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