parish_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: results are grouped by series, include date ranges, are limited to Riksarkivet-scanned material in a roughly 1840-1900 window, and "Se:" lines indicate records bound into another volume. It omits pagination, result-size limits, and what happens when a parish has no scanned volumes.

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 core action and its downstream use are front-loaded in the first sentence, then parameters, then scope caveats. The series example list is long but earns its space precisely because the schema documents nothing.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, this covers purpose, parameter meaning, scope limits and output quirks (the "Se:" convention) that the output schema alone may not explain. Gaps are minor: no pagination or empty-result behavior.

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, and it largely does: parish gets real examples ("Heda", "Väderstad", "Appuna") and series is explained as filtering on either code or name with five decoded examples. It stops short of stating matching rules (case sensitivity, diacritics, whether parish must be exact).

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?

A specific verb and resource ("List the digitised volumes of a parish's church archive") plus the grouping and returned fields, and it explicitly routes the agent to volume_pages/get_page, distinguishing it from every sibling. An agent knows exactly what this produces without opening the schema.

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 establishes the browse-then-fetch workflow by naming the downstream tools and their use of the returned volume id, and it scopes the result set ("Only volumes scanned by Riksarkivet itself... mostly c. 1840-1900"). It does not contrast itself with siblings browse or search_records, so the choice among discovery tools is left implicit.

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