search_archive

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond listing parameters and output format. It does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or important constraints, leaving agents with minimal behavioral context.

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 a single paragraph that lists parameters in a run-on sentence; it is not overly long but lacks structured formatting. It is adequate but not highly concise or well-organized.

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 tool's complexity (19 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by listing parameters, their meanings, and the return format (markdown table). It is reasonably complete for an agent to understand usage.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 19 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context such as dot-delimited boards, date format, page indexing, and output columns, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Full-text search across archived 4chan posts' with a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools get_thread, get_post, and list_boards are distinct, so agents can differentiate.

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 implies usage for searching across posts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_thread or get_post, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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