loc_newspaper_search

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals the safe read-only nature. The description adds that it searches OCR text from digitized pages, which is mildly informative, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination limits, result format, or any specific usage constraints beyond what the schema documents.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and provide the key scope. Every word is informative, with no filler or repetition.

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 fully described schema, the description adequately covers the high-level purpose, resource, and scope. The state/date filters are documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. Slight deduction because it doesn't note that results will be pages or hits, but that is implied by 'search of newspaper pages'.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, including text, state, date_from, date_to, page, and rows. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the historical date range but that is a resource scope, not parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action: full-text search of historical U.S. newspaper pages, with the scope (Chronicling America, 1777–1963) and the nature (OCR text). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like loc_newspaper_titles (which searches titles) or loc_search (general LOC 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching the text of historical U.S. newspapers. It gives the date range and the fact that it searches OCR text. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other types of searches, so a small gap remains.

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