wayback_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data types and utility, but omits details on rate limits, pagination, or what happens with large result sets. The schema has a limit parameter default of 1000, which is not mentioned in the description.

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 sentences: first states the core action and resource, second adds value and use cases. No wasted words – every sentence 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 tool with 4 parameters (all documented in schema), no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return types, and typical use cases. It could more explicitly describe the default limit behavior, but overall is sufficiently complete.

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 clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds context about the returned data (timestamps, status codes, MIME types), which indirectly aids understanding of the filter parameter, but does not add specific parameter-level guidance beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Wayback Machine for archived URLs of a domain, specifies the returned data (timestamps, status codes, MIME types), and distinguishes it from siblings like wayback_snapshots by focusing on URL discovery.

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 mentions use cases ('finding old endpoints, hidden paths, and removed content') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like wayback_snapshots.

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