get_online_availability

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and scope (openWorldHint), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real interpretive context — that NARA tracks digitisation by commercial partners and that a partner index entry should not replace the original page. That is useful behavioral framing not present in the structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence and the follow-up earns its place by explaining provenance rationale. The closing aside about citations is slightly discursive but not wasteful for a tool with no output schema.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (other online holdings, partner copies) and why it matters. Only the ambiguity with get_partner_digital_objects keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single naid parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description gestures at NAID's importance for citations but adds no format, syntax, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource — listing alternative online locations for a record — which is clearer than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-twin sibling get_partner_digital_objects, so an agent must still reason about which one to call.

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 supplies one concrete scenario ('resolve a hint from a subscription site back to the archival original'), which is better than nothing, but it gives no when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions get_partner_digital_objects as the alternative for partner-hosted objects.

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