get_online_availability

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data scope are covered. The description adds a useful nuance — that a partner index entry is not a substitute for the page — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or latency for a tool whose results come from external partners.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with supporting rationale after it. The later sentences lean editorial ('a partner's index entry is not a substitute for the page'), which adds tone more than operational information, but the overall length remains reasonable.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys what is returned (a list of online availability, including commercial partners) and why it matters. For a single-parameter read with annotations covering safety, this is largely complete; only return-shape details (e.g., whether partner names/URLs are included) are left implicit.

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 there is a single naid parameter, so the schema already carries the load and baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces why the NAID matters for citation refindability, which is helpful context but not new syntactic or format detail.

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 — listing where else this record is available online — and clarifies that NARA records digitised/published locations. It is clear on its own, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_partner_digital_objects, which occupies similar conceptual territory.

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?

Provides a concrete usage scenario: resolving a hint from a subscription site back to the archival original. That is a clear 'when to use' trigger. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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