get_record_image

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering safety, the description adds real value: it states the return contents (image/waypoint links, DGS and image numbers), discloses that many records return no link rather than a fabricated one, and notes the access-token requirement. It stops short of describing failure modes or response shape specifics.

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The purpose is front-loaded, but the middle paragraph is prose-heavy (indexer mis-reads, normalised spellings, unpublished microfilm) for a single-parameter lookup. The context is genuinely useful but not tightly compressed.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload, the important edge case of missing images, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret a null-ish result.

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 (ark) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already says, 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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('find the document image an indexed record was taken from'), which is clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_image_links, get_film_image, or download_image, which an agent could confuse it with, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains the motivating use case (verifying indexer errors against the actual image) and tells the agent what to do when no image exists (read the citation and order the film). It does not name sibling tools or say when to prefer them, so no explicit alternative routing.

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