get_collection

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

Adds context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: 'Works without a token' discloses the auth requirement, and the note about image count versus record count gives interpretation guidance for the returned counts. It does not describe pagination or response shape, but that is largely covered by the single-record scope.

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 the core action, then supporting usage and interpretation notes. Slightly conversational ('how much of it there is') but every sentence carries information; no wasted text.

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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the returned counts mean and the heuristic for a low image-to-record ratio. The auth note fills another gap. Only minor omissions (return structure) remain.

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 100% and the single collection_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including example format and where search_collections yields values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one record collection') and immediately scopes what is returned ('what it covers, and how much of it there is'). This distinguishes it from the sibling search_collections, which the schema note also references, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 clear use condition: 'Worth reading before trusting a nil result,' which tells the agent when this tool is valuable. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling alternative, but the implicit contrast with search_collections is reasonably clear.

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