get_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (image + citation + viewer link) plus hard constraints: width must be 400–3000, rotation limited to 0/90/180/270, region accepted formats. It omits failure modes (e.g. nonexistent page/image) and any access or rate-limit notes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return value in the first sentence, then a compact per-parameter block where every line adds information. No redundant restatement of the tool name or filler prose.

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?

Six parameters, one required, fully documented, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out further. The remaining gap is inter-tool context — when this is preferable to volume_pages and how page/image numbering relates to that sibling's output.

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%, so the description must supply everything, and it does: volume accepts an id, manifest URL, or full image id with a concrete example; image vs page (Bild vs Sida) is explicitly disambiguated; region documents all three syntaxes with a worked example ('pct:50,0,50,50' = top-right quarter); width and rotation give valid ranges.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a scanned page so it can be read') and immediately names what comes back: the image, a ready-made source citation, and a viewer link. The purpose is unmistakable, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling volume_pages tool, which likely lists pages for a volume.

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?

Offers workflow guidance inside the parameter notes — 'Use ~1600 for an overview, then zoom with region', and 'good for reading small handwriting' — which implicitly tells the agent how to iterate. However, it gives no tool-level guidance about when to call get_page rather than volume_pages, browse, or search_records.

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