get_image_links

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so concretely: storage node, deep-zoom descriptor, thumbnails at several sizes, `dist` for full resolution, plus neighbouring pages. It also discloses an auth-dependent behavior ('With a token it gives the film (image group) and image number'), which annotations do not cover.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the middle paragraph explains why neighbouring pages matter. The 'pension file or passenger manifest' example is illustrative but slightly atmospheric; the content still earns its place, so this is efficient rather than padded.

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 with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, the extra neighbouring-page payload, and the token-conditional citation data. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and interpret the result is missing.

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 schema already documents image_ark in full, including its format and provenance. The description repeats the get_record_image provenance hint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Resolve a document image to its actual, fetchable URLs') and explicitly positions itself against a sibling: a record read does not carry image links, this one does. The agent can distinguish this from get_record and get_record_image without opening a 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?

Explains the workflow context — take the ark from get_record_image's 'sources' entry where resource_type is DigitalArtifact — and rules out get_record as a source of image links. It stops short of stating when to prefer download_image or get_film_image among the many image-related siblings, but the entry condition is clear.

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