get_image_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates what comes back (storage node, deep-zoom descriptor, multiple thumbnail sizes, full-resolution page, neighbour pages), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 and return contents; the trailing sentence about pension files and manifests earns its place by justifying the neighbour-page behaviour, though it is the wordiest part of an otherwise tight definition.

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 carries the return-value burden and does it well, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema itself supplies the precise provenance rule for image_ark. The description adds no format or sourcing 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 contrasts itself with a record read. It does not distinguish itself from image-related siblings like get_record_image, get_film_image, or download_image, so an agent still has to guess among those.

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 trigger condition — you need this when a record read lacks image links and the image resource carries them — and explains why neighbouring pages matter. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. when to prefer download_image), so 'when not to use' is absent.

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