Wayback Urls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it uses the Wayback Machine CDX API, which implies an external service, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or response characteristics. This is adequate but minimal given the annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name, earning its place entirely.

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, has only two parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description provides enough to understand the operation and call the tool with a domain. Minor gaps remain around limit semantics and domain formatting, but these are not blocking for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description does not compensate meaningfully. 'Domain' appears in prose, but 'limit' is never mentioned or explained, nor is the expected domain format (e.g., with or without scheme). The schema provides types and a default, but the description adds almost no semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('archived URLs for a domain') while identifying the exact data source ('Wayback Machine CDX API'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling OSINT tools, which focus on DNS, certificates, WHOIS, or user enumeration.

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 when to use the tool: whenever historical or archived URLs for a domain are needed. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool's purpose alone.

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