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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds substantial value: keyless CDX API, passive (reads archive, never the target), read-only, and covers subdomains. It does not cover rate limits, output format, or pagination, but the safety and fetch semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Compact, front-loaded: verb, resource, source in the first clause, then value-add modifiers. 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?

Given one param, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers source, passivity, read-only, scope, and the type of data returned. Missing return-format/pagination hints, but no output schema so not strictly required.

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 coverage is 100% with the domain parameter documented including subdomain inclusion. The description adds minor confirmation of subdomain scope but largely repeats the schema. Baseline 3 is met; slight top-up for reinforcing scope.

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 (List), resource (historical URLs), and data source (Wayback Machine CDX API). Explicitly covers what kinds of results (old endpoints, forgotten paths, files no longer live) and scope (domain + subdomains), distinguishing it from wayback_snapshot which would fetch a single snapshot.

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?

Describes what the tool does and hints at the OSINT use case (passive recon), but does not explicitly say when to use this vs wayback_snapshot or passive_dns, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied by context.

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