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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the Wayback Machine source and the specific data fields, but does not disclose potential behavioral nuances like rate limits, data availability caveats, or what happens when no crawl history exists. It provides some context beyond annotations but stops short of rich disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key output fields. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or 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?

The description explains the return data (first/last seen dates, snapshot count) sufficiently, even without an output schema. Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly more thorough by noting any response structure or edge-case behavior, but it's adequate for the intended use.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explicitly using 'domain' in context, clarifying that the single parameter is the domain to query. However, it does not specify format requirements (e.g., bare domain vs. protocol, without www), which is a minor gap for a one-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves first/last seen dates and total snapshot count for a domain, with the source explicitly identified as the Wayback Machine. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_authority or get_site_explorer.

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 implies the use case (when crawl history is needed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no direct comparison with related tools such as get_site_explorer or get_domain_rank, leaving usage context implicit.

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