search_archives

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, default sorting, or whether the search is free-text or filtered. The agent gets minimal insight into what happens beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured to include usage context, but overall it earns its brevity.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It names the aggregator but does not explain expected response format, language handling, or how pagination interacts with queries. Some gaps remain.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Per rules, baseline is 3.

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 the tool searches for documents in a specific Greek scientific content aggregator (OpenArchives.gr). It directly differentiates from sibling tools which focus on collections, metadata, or types.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browse_collections or get_document_metadata. The description does not specify use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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