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

Annotations only give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: 'original means unchanged viewer-download bytes', uncertain results return files=[], a supplied scan_sequence yields SELECTED status, allow_probable permits a PROBABLE download while preserving that status, and no silent first-record/candidate selection is made. This is unusually rich status/semantics disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, so size is appropriate. However, the terse, jargon-dense fragments ('FOUND downloads its bound scans', 'archive-master claim') are cryptic and require domain knowledge to parse, which hurts structure more than length does.

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 6-parameter mutation-capable tool with no output schema, the description usefully covers the uncertain/failed result shape (files=[]) and status semantics. It still leaves several parameters and the reader/output pipeline unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict invocation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain scan_sequence, allow_probable, and output_format ('original means unchanged viewer-download bytes'), but leaves reader (an enum), max_scans, and record_id completely unaddressed. Partial compensation for a 6-param, zero-coverage 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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Resolve and download an act') and the surrounding sentences describe what resolution entails. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'download_scan', which would be the most likely point of confusion for an agent.

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 hints at behavior ('Uncertain results return files=[]') and explains what scan_sequence and allow_probable do, but never states when to use this tool versus download_scan or resolve_act_scan. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds value beyond them: the caveat that selection does not verify act identity, and the critical detail that files come back as resource_uri/provenance_uri rather than inline base64. That return mechanism is non-obvious and materially changes how an agent consumes the result.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, with no filler. The telegraphic style is efficient but borders on terse, leaving a little interpretation to the reader.

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 usefully explains the resource_uri/provenance_uri return path, and it establishes the selection constraint. But the required sequence parameter is never really explained, and with openWorldHint=true there is no note on access or permission prerequisites, leaving gaps for a network-fetching tool.

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 carries the burden. It explains the mutual exclusivity of record_id/source_url ('exactly one'), and 'one-based' loosely clarifies the required sequence parameter. Neither parameter's format is fully pinned down, so compensation is only partial.

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 (download) and resource (scan) and adds meaningful qualifiers: one-based selection, SHA256 verification, and local provenance. However, it does not distinguish this scan-download tool from siblings like download_act or resolve_act_scan, so an agent must infer the split.

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 gives a hard constraint ('Provide exactly one record_id/source_url') that shapes invocation, and 'explicitly selected' hints a prior resolution step. But it names no alternatives and offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to download_act or resolve_act_scan.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered externally. The description's only added content is a field list, which duplicates the output schema rather than disclosing anything new (auth needs, not-found behavior, rate limits).

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler, though the trailing field enumeration is partly redundant with the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the description is thin on the surrounding context that matters for a lookup tool, such as what happens when the ID does not resolve.

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% and record_id has no documentation in the schema, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It partially compensates by revealing the expected 'gld:<UUID>' identifier format, but says nothing about validity, casing, or failure modes.

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 (Get) and resource (a gld:<UUID> record), and enumerates the payload the caller gets back (act number, act/event dates, source, relatives). It is reasonably distinguishable from search_acts, though the cryptic 'gld:<UUID>' token is never explained.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search_acts or resolve_act_scan, and no stated prerequisite that a known record ID is required. The agent must infer the retrieval-by-ID use case on its own.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: pagination is one-based, and partial results (missing batches/unknown totals) surface as errors rather than partial successes. This is real added context, though 'proven total' and 'missing batches' remain unexplained jargon.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return behavior. Minimal waste, though the trailing one-based note and the error sentence are slightly clipped and could be integrated more cleanly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, and the description appropriately gestures at the result shape. However, with 0% parameter coverage, the meaning of 'limit' and 'url' is missing, and the error condition is stated without saying what a caller should do about it, leaving the definition only minimally complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 carry the semantics, but it only addresses one parameter: 'start is one-based,' which disambiguates indexing beyond the bare minimum=1 in the schema. The 'limit' and 'url' parameters are given no meaning, so most of the burden is unmet.

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 ('Discover all scan references') plus the return shape ('proven total and a paginated scan list'), which tells an agent this is a listing/discovery operation. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from plausible siblings like search_acts or get_record, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The closest thing to guidance is the error note ('missing batches/unknown totals are errors'), which is a behavioral constraint rather than a routing rule.

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

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: no OCR or image downloads by default, optional local readers producing 'bounded evidence and candidates', and the rule that AMBIGUOUS/PROBABLE results are not confirmed acts. This tells the agent what the tool will and won't do operationally. The readOnlyHint=false annotation is not explained by the description, though it is not directly contradicted either (local index/cache writes are plausible).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the selector constraint and default mode; little waste. The telegraphic phrasing ('bounded evidence and candidates') is compact but slightly cryptic.

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?

The selector rule, default mode, and ambiguity caveat are covered, and an output schema exists so return shape need not be described. However, for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the semantics of name, act_number, and max_scans are absent, leaving the agent guessing on non-trivial inputs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description must carry the load; it usefully disambiguates 'date means act date' and states the mutual exclusivity of record_id/source_url, and loosely characterizes reader as an 'installed local reader'. It says nothing about name, act_number, or max_scans, so several parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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 clear verb+resource ('Resolve an act') and immediately scopes it with the input selector rule ('exactly one of record_id/source_url'). It implicitly separates the tool from download_act/download_scan by declaring metadata-only default, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a hard usage constraint (exactly one of record_id/source_url) and states the default operating mode, which implies when to leave readers off. It never says when to prefer resolve_act_scan over search_acts, get_record, or download_act, so routing is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: date filters the event date, records stay separate, number_found counts API person hits, and next_start drives pagination. These are non-obvious behavioral traits, not restatements of the annotations.

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?

Terse, front-loaded, no filler sentences. The clipped, note-like phrasing (semicolons, fragments) is efficient but slightly telegraphic, costing a point on readability.

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 7-parameter search tool with 0% schema documentation, the description covers only date and pagination. It omits how name/place/year/record_type interact, whether date and year can combine, and what limit bounds mean. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return shape but not the parameter gaps.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. Only 'date' gets semantics ('filters the event date'); place, year, record_type, limit, start, and the required name are left entirely to bare schema titles.

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+resource+corpus: 'Search Gelders Archief acts in Open Archieven'. It implicitly separates itself from retrieval siblings (download_act, get_record) by noting records are returned separately and record_id feeds follow-up calls, though it never names a sibling outright.

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?

Gives downstream usage ('Use record_id for subsequent calls', 'next_start enables pagination') but no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance and no exclusions. The agent must infer that get_record/download_act are the follow-on tools.

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