get_record_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it frames the images as evidence, explains that the catalog description does not describe individual pages, and states the return shape (ordered entries carrying an object id). It omits pagination or size limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 load-bearing statement is front-loaded in one sentence, and the remaining sentences explain why and what to do next. The middle clause about catalog descriptions is slightly discursive but earns its place by justifying the call.

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 must sketch the return value, and it does: a page-ordered list, each item carrying an object id usable by get_extracted_text and get_transcriptions. It does not mention pagination, empty results, or failure modes, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 both parameters (naid, refresh) are documented there, including the cache-replacement behavior of refresh. The description adds no direct detail about naid or refresh, so the baseline of 3 applies; its object-id talk concerns the return value rather than the inputs.

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 specific verb (List), resource (a record's page images), and ordering guarantee (page order), plus the key field returned (object id). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_record, get_extracted_text, and download_page_image.

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?

The description tells the agent when this tool matters ('read the images before citing anything to this record') and clarifies why the catalog description is insufficient. It also routes forward to download_page_image by explaining what to pass. It stops short of stating when to skip this tool or naming a directly competing alternative.

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