get_from_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns extracted article text, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it omits other contextual traits such as rate limits, failure modes, or what happens when a source is unavailable, so it only partially meets the transparency bar.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence and a compact list of allowed sources. It avoids fluff, though the formatting of the list with line breaks could be cleaner.

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 description covers the core purpose, parameter constraints, and return value, which is acceptable for a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and any error/edge-case behavior, making it only minimally complete.

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 description adds the list of valid values for 'source', which is essential given the schema has no enums. It also implies 'url' is the original URL to fetch. However, it provides no further context about URL format or what each source actually represents, so the added meaning is limited.

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The description clearly states the verb ('Fetch'), resource ('an archived version of a URL'), and constraint ('from a specific source'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_archives' by implying a direct fetch rather than a search, though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_archives' or 'remove_paywall'. The description lists allowed sources but does not explain the selection context or any exclusions, leaving the choice of tool ambiguous.

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