search_historical_newspapers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and source, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, whether it is read-only, or how it handles large queries. The description is too brief to adequately inform an agent of expected behavior.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and source. Every word is necessary and informative. It achieves conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters including filters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or any pagination behavior. It lacks guidance on error handling or API specifics. A more complete description would mention return format or additional result details.

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 input schema describes all 5 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter beyond what is in the schema.

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 historical newspaper records from a specific source (Chronicling America via Library of Congress API). It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (historical newspaper records). While it distinguishes from sibling search tools by format (newspapers), it does not elaborate on the scope of the search (e.g., full-text vs. metadata) or how it differs from compare_historical_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?

The description implies usage for searching historical newspapers, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like search_maps or search_manuscripts. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use. The context is implied by the name and brief description.

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