Get archiveresults

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it may raise ParameterError and that api_key is for QueryParamTokenAuth — mildly useful context but no detail on pagination behavior, auth requirements, or result shape.

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 first line is front-loaded and useful, but the body is autogenerated docstring boilerplate where roughly half the lines restate the parameter name. 'Returns: Response: The response object from the GET request' is pure filler that consumes space without informing.

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 an 18-parameter, no-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the definition should explain what an ArchiveResult contains and what values status/extractor accept. It covers parameter names but not semantics or return shape; the annotations partially compensate by confirming this is a safe, idempotent read.

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% across 18 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It does enumerate every parameter, and a few entries add real meaning ('search across snapshot url, title, tags, extractor, output, id'; ISO 8601 for the created_at variants; limit/offset/page semantics). But many are tautological restatements ('status: Filter by status', 'output: Filter by output', 'cmd: Filter by command'), and no valid values are given for status, extractor, or cmd, which is the information an agent actually needs to filter.

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 opening line gives a clear verb and resource: 'List all ArchiveResult entries matching these filters,' which distinguishes it from the singular archivebox_get_archiveresult and from snapshot/tag listers. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state the boundary condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this list endpoint versus archivebox_get_archiveresult (singular fetch) or the snapshot variants. The body is a parameter enumeration with no context, alternatives, or prerequisites, so an agent gets no routing help.

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