get_collection

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld safety, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: depth varies, a terse record does not imply absence, and '[microform]' denotes a copy. Caching behavior is disclosed in the schema rather than the description, and no error/auth/rate-limit context is given.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the body drifts into citation lore (microform copies, oclc_number) that is useful yet peripheral to invoking the tool, and the multi-clause sentences are not tightly structured.

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 carry the return-value burden, and it does: it describes linked names, variable depth, the `link`/`link_kind` field, and `oclc_number`. Nothing critical for a correct call is missing, though it never states what to do on an empty 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 description coverage is 100%, so both `resource_id` and `refresh` (including the 30-day cache and refresh-before-concluding-absence rule) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 one collection description in full, with the names SNAC links to it' — and the singular framing implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_collections. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 concrete downstream guidance: follow `link` when `link_kind` is finding_aid, cite the finding aid by collection number, record `oclc_number`. It does not say when to prefer this tool over search_collections or get_name, so the selection guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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