get_transcriptions

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the trust level of the data: transcriptions are 'one stranger's reading, unreviewed,' and names are the likeliest error. The instruction to verify against the page image and cite the image is actionable behavioral guidance the annotations cannot supply. It stops short of operational detail (empty results when no transcription exists, caching), which is partly covered by the refresh parameter.

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-loads the one-line purpose, then adds caveats and return shape in two short paragraphs; three paragraphs for a single-read tool is slightly more than needed, but each sentence carries usable signal (provenance warning, citation rule, result shape).

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, yet the description states the return shape ('one entry per transcription with its text, its author and the page'), the safety profile is carried by annotations, and the data-reliability caveat is covered. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results responsibly.

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 the refresh/max_chars semantics (cache replacement, character truncation) are already fully explained in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the implied record scope, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the citizen transcriptions of a record's pages') and immediately scopes it as human-transcribed, OCR-defying material, which cleanly separates it from get_extracted_text and the search_* siblings. An agent knows what it returns and what kind of content it is without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear positive usage context ('fastest way into a document in copperplate') and an implicit contrast with OCR-based siblings ('that OCR cannot touch'). However, it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it (e.g., when no transcription exists, fall back to get_extracted_text), so the routing is left partly to inference.

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