ia_get_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what content comes back (PDF, OCR text, page images), but says nothing about whether files are actually downloaded, permission/authentication needs, rate limits, or response size limits for large items.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead, and the parenthetical enumerates return content compactly.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be documented, and for a single-parameter retrieval tool the description is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the identifier's expected form, which neither schema nor description explains.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it — no identifier format, no example (e.g., an Internet Archive item slug), no statement that it must be an exact item id rather than a query. The single self-evident name does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (get) and resource (one item) and enumerates what the caller receives: metadata, rights, downloadable files. That distinguishes it from the sibling search tools (ia_search, ia_fulltext_search) and the text tools (ia_read_text, ia_grep_text), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: a caller with an item identifier who wants the item's metadata and files would reach for this. There is no statement of when to prefer it over ia_read_text or ia_grep_text, nor any prerequisite such as needing an identifier obtained from ia_search.

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