Read an item

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description reveals default behavior (basic section), the potentially large size of files list, the always-reported file_count and total_bytes, and the trade-off of full_metadata. This gives the agent a clear picture of output size and how to control it.

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?

Four sentences deliver all key information with no padding. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains default behavior, the third details the optional sections and filtering, and the fourth reveals an always-returned metric. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, output schema presence, and strong annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to get the item, what sections are available, size implications, and default metrics. No critical gaps remain for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

With 80% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains what 'basic' covers, that 'files' lists derivatives and can be filtered by format, and that full_metadata is rarely needed. It does not mention max_description_chars, but the schema already provides bounds; overall the description enriches 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 opens with 'Read one Internet Archive item by its identifier,' which clearly states a specific verb (read) and resource (item). It distinguishes from sibling search/list tools by targeting a single known item rather than searching, and it references the upstream search tools that produce the identifier.

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 explains that identifiers come from search_items or search_inside, implicitly guiding when to use this tool (after searching). It also provides clear guidance on section selection, advising against full_metadata as 'large and rarely needed' and recommending format filtering for files, which helps choose the right parameters.

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