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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context annotations cannot express: 'free, no key' discloses the authentication requirement, and the enumerated return fields set expectations for output shape. No rate-limit or pagination-behavior detail is given.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by return values and use cases. Every sentence carries information; there is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 low-complexity two-parameter search tool, the definition covers purpose, source scope, content types, return fields, and the no-key/free access model, while annotations carry the safety profile and an output schema exists for return detail. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both 'query' (with an example) and 'limit' (default 10, max 100). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies for a fully schema-documented parameter set.

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 and resource ('Search the Internet Archive') and enumerates what is returned: identifiers, titles, years, creators, media types with item URLs. This clearly separates it from sibling search tools like arxiv_search, pubmed_search, or open_library_search by source and content scope.

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?

'Use for public-domain texts, audio, video and archived web materials' gives clear positive context for selecting this tool over domain-specific siblings. However, it names no explicit exclusions or alternative tools for cases where another archive/database would be better.

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