get_partner_digital_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: an empty list is the common answer and not an error, and the returned ids are index pointers rather than citations for the archival record.

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 in the first sentence, followed by three short paragraphs that each add a distinct point (mechanism, empty-list semantics, citation guidance). No filler, though the citation guidance is marginally tangential to invocation.

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 compensates fully: it characterizes the return value (a list of partner index ids), states that empty is the expected default, and warns against treating the ids as citations. An agent has everything needed to call this and interpret the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the naid parameter is documented with an example ('54765873'), so the structured field carries the load. The description only implies that 'this record' is identified by NAID and adds no format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond the schema — the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?

The first sentence gives a precise verb and resource: list digital object ids that a partner has matched to a record, scoped by NAID. The follow-up paragraph explains the mechanism (NARA index vs. commercial partner metadata), which functionally separates it from siblings such as get_record_images and get_online_availability without naming them.

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 gives clear context for use — 'worth knowing when NARA's own pages are not online' — and explicitly frames the empty-list outcome as normal rather than a failure. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating a when-not-to-use condition.

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