wayback_urls

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

The description discloses that the tool returns unique URLs with metadata, but with no annotations, it omits details on side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict annotations as none exist.

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 description is compact with three sentences: purpose, return details, and use case. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, with no redundant words.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately explains the return data but does not elaborate on how parameters like 'match_type' work or provide examples. It is sufficient for basic use but could be more 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?

The schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning or examples for parameters like 'match_type' or 'filter', relying on schema descriptions.

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 it searches for archived URLs of a domain and returns unique URLs with timestamps, status codes, and MIME types. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'wayback_snapshots' by focusing on URLs rather than full snapshots.

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 provides a use case: 'useful for finding old endpoints, hidden paths, and removed content.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the intended purpose.

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