アーカイブ済みページ本文取得

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns raw HTML without the Wayback toolbar and gives a practical tip about using raw=true when text is garbled. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond just 'fetch', though the default output format is not explicitly stated.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by suitability and a troubleshooting tip. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

For a simple read-only fetch tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, a key behavioral detail (no toolbar), a use case, and a parameter-specific tip. It does not mention error behavior or the exact return format, but the schema already documents parameter details and the tool is straightforward.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the raw parameter in a usage context (use raw=true when garbled), which is not present in the schema. This tips the score above baseline.

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 '取得する' (fetch) with a clear resource '保存済みの古いページ本文' (archived page body). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wayback_cdx_search (searching snapshots) and wayback_outlinks (extracting links), and even mentions the absence of the Wayback toolbar, which is a specific trait.

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 provides clear context by stating it is suitable for confirming page content and converting to text, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to choose this over related tools.

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