search_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the search matches on title or summary, which is a valuable behavioral detail. It implies a read-only operation (search) but does not explicitly state side effects or edge cases, yet it is sufficient for a simple search tool.

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 sentences with no redundant phrasing. The first sentence front-loads the action and matching behavior, while the second provides a usage guideline. 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present). The description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. It omits any mention of result limits or ordering, but this is not essential for a basic search tool.

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 has one parameter ('query') with zero schema description. The description clarifies that 'query' is a keyword and that it matches title or summary, directly adding meaning beyond the schema. This adequately compensates for the lack of schema description, though it does not provide example formats.

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 action ('Search stored articles') and the scope ('by keyword (matches title or summary)'). This specific verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_source, fetch_latest, and make_digest.

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 an explicit usage cue: 'Use when the user asks about a specific topic from the archive.' This gives a clear context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is slightly less informative than the calibration high example.

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