search_admin_archive

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it reports batches and coverage, interprets zero hits as local-only, and requires following admin refs with fetch and then all evidence pages. No contradiction exists.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence gives scope and output behavior, and the rest adds filters and a concrete follow-up workflow. Every clause earns its place 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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core scope, the key local-only edge case, and a required follow-up workflow. It could more explicitly define the return shape and what 'admin:' refs and evidence pages mean, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the input schema. It does add meaning to the courts parameter by expanding CE/CAA/TA and noting these filters are supported here. However, query, offset, date_start, and date_end semantics are left to inference from their names and types, with no added explanation of date-range inclusivity or offset behavior.

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 verb and resource: 'Search the operator-imported official XML subset.' It also clarifies the tool's output semantics ('Report batches and coverage; zero hits is local only') and the supported filters, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools.

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 about when this tool applies: it searches the operator-imported official XML, supports CE/CAA/TA filters 'here', and tells the agent to follow admin refs with fetch then all evidence pages. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the 'here' and scope cues give adequate direction.

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