HALOWERK: List archived versions of a URL with dates, status codes and content changes, an

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it mentions CDX index stability issues, fallback to the availability endpoint, reporting of degraded state, separation of error captures, and content-digest logic. These details go well beyond the read-only/open-world hints.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by a logically organized detailed explanation. However, pricing information is duplicated (once as 'Kostenpflichtig' and again as 'Preis'), adding redundancy and slightly bloating the text.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (capture time, HTTP status, MIME type, content digest), the target-date gap in days, error separation, and degraded-mode reporting. It covers all essential aspects 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?

The schema already covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaning for key parameters like `target_date` (returns nearest snapshot with gap in days), `changes_only` (content digest logic), and `include_errors` (separating error captures). It does not elaborate on `limit` or date range parameters, but the overall context compensates.

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 begins with a specific, compound action: 'List archived versions of a URL with dates, status codes and content changes, and get the snapshot closest to any date you name.' This clearly identifies the resource (archived versions) and the operations (list and get). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on cost, validation, and other concerns.

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 contextual use cases, such as 'what a citation of a page as it stood on a given day needs' and explains that the changed-versions list is 'the list worth reading.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, though the niche is well-defined relative to siblings.

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