get_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: results are capped at 50 articles. However, it omits the consequences of that cap (whether more can be retrieved, pagination, or truncation semantics) and says nothing about auth/API-key requirements for a mutation-free but credentialed external API.

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 opening sentence and cap disclosure are front-loaded and efficient, but the 'Args' block largely restates parameter names that the schema already lists, and the 'Returns' block is redundant given an output schema exists. Some boilerplate fails to earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail is unnecessary, and the 50-article cap plus year/month bounds cover the essentials for a simple two-real-parameter tool. It remains silent on truncation behavior beyond the cap and on what happens for months with no archived articles.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add the meaningful constraints year >= 1851 and month 1-12 that the schema does not encode. It still leaves 'ctx' unexplained and offers no format or edge-case guidance for out-of-range values, so compensation is only partial.

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 resource ('Get article metadata from the NYT Archive') scoped to a monthly window, which is enough to separate it from get_top_stories and get_most_popular. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_articles, the closest sibling, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 month-scoped phrasing implies the use case (bulk retrieval of a historical month's articles), but it never says when to prefer this over search_articles or when the archive is inappropriate. Usage must be inferred from the resource name rather than stated.

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