landis_archive_get_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the 'locally mirrored' data-source context; it does not describe error behavior, availability of the item, or other runtime traits, but this is not a contradiction.

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?

A single eight-word sentence that front-loads the action and object with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple single-argument read tool.

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 one-argument read-only tool with a rich output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main missing context is where archiveId comes from and when to select the list sibling, but the schema and annotations cover the rest.

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 bears the burden of explaining archiveId, but it never mentions the parameter or its format and provenance. The phrase 'one ... item' only weakly implies that archiveId identifies the item, leaving the agent without guidance beyond the name.

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 ('Get detail') and a specific resource ('one locally mirrored LandIS archive item'). The singular 'one' differentiates it from sibling landis_archive_list_items and makes the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as landis_archive_list_items, nor does it mention that an archiveId must first be obtained from a list/catalog call. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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