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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, it discloses that score and num_comments are archived snapshots lagging roughly 36 hours, that empty searches return an empty posts array, and that timeouts or throttles return 503 with Retry-After. It also identifies returned fields such as created_utc, retrieved_on, and removed_by_category.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded: it opens with the core search capability, then packs in scoping constraints, return behavior, staleness, sort default, error handling, and the sibling alternative. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 nine optional parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the remaining behavioral gaps: historical scope, time-bound constraints, archive staleness, error behavior, and the comments-search alternative. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears 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%, so the schema already explains each parameter; the description adds important cross-parameter semantics by warning that created_after and created_before cannot be used alone to drive a search. It also adds the default sort direction (desc) beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb (Search), resource (historical Reddit post archive), and scope (Arctic Shift public archive), and names the sibling comment-search tool explicitly. An agent can distinguish it from both the comments archive tool and live Reddit tools without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear usage rule that creation-time bounds can narrow a search but cannot be used alone, and routes comment searches to reddit_archive_comments_search. It does not explicitly contrast the archive with live Reddit tools like reddit_search, but the 'historical archive' framing makes the domain clear enough.

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