draft_archive_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: output contains '[brackets]' gaps and the tool does NOT send the letter ('The user sends it — not the tool'). This boundary is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded and compact: purpose first, scope parenthetical, output caveat, and the crucial sending boundary packed into three short sentences with no filler. Slightly dense but nothing wasteful.

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 complex 16-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description covers purpose and behavioral boundaries well and an output schema exists (so returns needn't be explained) — but the large set of vaguely-named inputs (what, place, years, details, relation) is left unexplained, leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 only 25% across 16 parameters, so the description would need to compensate, but it explains almost no parameters. Only 'kind' is meaningfully documented, and that lives in the schema, not the description. The '[brackets]' note hints at fill-in fields without mapping to any parameter.

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 deliverable: it drafts a letter to a registry office or archive, enumerating the archive kinds (ZAGS, state, military, FSB; English/Spanish/Portuguese). The agent can tell it produces a request letter rather than researching records, but the description does not explicitly differentiate it from near-domain siblings like record_guide or find_sources.

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?

No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives are given, so usage is only implied. The enumeration of archive kinds and the note about languages implicitly tells the agent the scenarios where it applies, but a caller must still infer it from the deliverable description alone.

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