Search archive.org footage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds real context: results are capped at 5, ranked, and annotated with license, collection tier and match rationale. It also discloses that text matching happens remotely on archive.org while ranking is local, which matters for latency and failure expectations. Pagination mechanics are mentioned but not detailed.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: output shape first, pagination second, execution model third. No filler and well front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it usefully summarizes them, and it covers the remote-search/local-rank split that an agent should know before calling. Minor gap: no guidance on how many results to expect per page or what an empty result means.

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 67% and the schema already documents brief, cursor and the filter semantics (license modes, tier meaning). The only added meaning is tying the cursor parameter to the next_cursor output, which is a modest but genuine clarification. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the weight.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: turning a written shot brief into ranked archive.org video items, capped at 5. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inspect_item, extract_clip and get_provenance, which act on items rather than search for them.

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 phrase 'turn a written shot brief into...' establishes the entry condition clearly, and 'Page with next_cursor' signals the follow-up call. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or when to switch to inspect_item, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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