search_full_archive_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully flags the account-tier prerequisite and the historical coverage, but says nothing about rate limits (despite a check_rate_limits sibling), pagination behavior beyond the next_token name, or the read-only nature of the call.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the access prerequisite before the Args block, and the per-parameter lines are justified because the schema itself carries no descriptions. Slightly list-heavy but every line adds 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the tier prerequisite plus all parameter semantics and pagination via next_token. Only rate-limit behavior is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the dedicated sibling tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly: character limit and boolean support for query, ISO 8601 format with examples for both timestamps, 10-500 range with default for max_results, and the enum values for sort_order. This fully documents all six parameters.

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 (Search) and resource (complete historical archive of posts on X) with an explicit temporal scope (March 2006 to present). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling search_recent_posts even without naming it directly.

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?

Provides an important prerequisite ('Requires an X API account tier with full-archive search access') and the archive scope implicitly frames when this is the right tool versus a recent-posts search. It stops short of explicitly naming search_recent_posts as the alternative and stating the selection condition.

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