Get Page Image

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context — which it does by disclosing the thumbnail default and the 5000000-byte cap. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or what happens when the byte cap is exceeded, keeping it short of 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by default/override behavior. Minimal waste, though the default-value sentence partially duplicates the schema's own descriptions.

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 usefully explains the return as an image content block, and covers the key size/cap knobs. It omits error/permission behavior, which is a minor gap for a read-only single-resource fetch.

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 schema already documents defaults for 'size' and 'maxBytes', so the baseline is 3. The description restates the thumbnail default and the cap but adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Return the scanned image of a page') and specifies the return form ('as an image content block'), which clearly separates it from text/metadata siblings like transkribus_page_get_text or transkribus_page_get_metadata. An agent can identify the tool's function 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?

It gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate ('so a multimodal client can read the manuscript itself') and hints at an alternative operating mode ('ask for size "full"'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative page-content tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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