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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals meaningful behavioral semantics: multiple entries per period indicate revisions, and the caller must cite the returned URL. It does not address permissions or rate limits, but for a non-mutating archive lookup these are minor.

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: first states purpose, second gives the three usage modes. No filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core invocation patterns, output interpretation, and a required follow-up action (citation). The only omitted details, such as limit behavior, are already covered by the schema.

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 already defines all three parameters with descriptions; the description adds relational semantics (asOf depends on series, and what each parameter combination returns). This goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the MFG Calcs Vintage Archive') and clarifies the exact value: reproducing a series' value as of a past date before revisions. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_revisions or get_change_events, even without naming them.

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 explicitly lays out three invocation modes: series + asOf for snapshots, series alone for revision trail, omit both for catalogue. This provides clear when-to-use guidance for the tool itself, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions.

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