archive_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals return shape, result ordering (best-first), the Term-AND matching semantics, and how to access full content. It's a read-only search so no destructive concerns, but it doesn't mention pagination limits or whether it's read-only explicitly. Solid disclosure for a search tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return format and follow-up guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with a documented return shape and follow-up guidance, this is quite complete. Lacking output schema is fine since the description documents the return fields. Minor gaps: query syntax details and max_results semantics, but these are low-stakes for a search tool. Complex enough (2 params) that the description adequately covers.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains what 'query' does implicitly (Term-AND full text matching) but doesn't describe the query syntax, how max_results interacts with results, or format expectations. max_results is self-evident from its name. The description adds moderate value but leaves query syntax unspecified.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search previously archived pages'. It specifies the source (personal web memory archive_page writes to), the search mode (Term-AND full text), and the return format ({path, title, source, retrieved, score, snippet}). The reference to archive_page distinguishes it from general web search.

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?

Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting it searches the archive written by archive_page, which separates it from search_web and fetch_archived. It also instructs to 'Read a hit's path for the full page as it was when archived,' offering a follow-up action. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternative tools as the top-tier examples do.

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