pricing_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about archive granularity (one capture per month/year), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume for a potentially long history.

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 tight sentences, purpose first, routing second. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy against the title or schema.

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-value shape needn't be described, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description covers purpose and routing well, with only minor gaps around result ordering or size.

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 schema already documents url, per, from_year, to_year, and response_format with examples. The description adds only the month/year granularity notion, which the `per` parameter description already conveys, so no meaningful lift beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource: listing Wayback Machine archive dates for a page, with granularity (one per month or year) called out. It clearly distinguishes itself from pricing_at by framing itself as the date-selection step. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 names a use case ('see how far back history goes') and routes to a sibling ('pick dates for pricing_at'). It lacks any when-not-to-use or mention of the other siblings like pricing_timeline, so it stops just short of the top score.

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