Read an item

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important operational behavior: sections are opt-in, full_metadata is 'large and rarely needed', and file_count/total_bytes are always reported even without requesting files. This adds useful context about response size and default behavior, though it does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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?

The description is four sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds operational insight (section options, file filtering, always-reported fields) without redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential user decisions: which sections to request, how to limit file responses, and what is always returned. It is a complete and self-sufficient guide for selecting and invoking this read tool.

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?

The schema already documents four of five parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the practical meaning of sections (basic vs files vs full_metadata) and the rationale for filtering by format, which goes beyond the schema's terse definitions. max_description_chars is not elaborated, but the schema supplies its constraints.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Read one Internet Archive item by its identifier', which clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling search tools. It also reinforces the purpose by noting the identifier comes from search_items or search_inside, making the tool's role in the workflow explicit.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('as returned by search_items or search_inside') and offers practical guidance on sections, such as using 'basic' by default and filtering files by format when a specific derivative is wanted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for searching, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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