search_content_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists what can be searched; it does not describe what the tool returns, whether it returns multiple results, matching behavior, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. For an unannotated tool, this leaves important behavioral questions unanswered.

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 compact sentence with no redundancy, and it front-loads the verb and resource. It could add more structural clarity by mapping fields to parameters, but it is efficient and readable.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three optional parameters with zero schema-level descriptions, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, what a successful response looks like, or how this search relates to the various sibling content tools, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It partially maps to topic and jurisdiction because those terms appear in the field list, but it does not clarify the query parameter's role or how the three parameters interact. The relationship between searching by topic/jurisdiction versus filtering by those fields is ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('archived' content), and enumerates the fields covered: titles, summaries, openings, topics, jurisdictions, and terminology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like find_content_record or find_content_overlap, so the boundary between them is left to the agent to infer.

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 use when searching the archive across the listed fields, giving reasonable context. But it provides no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool would be better suited for record lookup, overlap analysis, or verification. Usage is implicit rather than explicitly contrasted.

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