Search the archive

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

It goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by explaining that only the server's archive is searched, that '0 hits' does not mean absence in the world, and that Chinese/Russian content is indexed in its original language. It also tells the agent to retry transliterated or translated queries before concluding anything.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear IMPORTANT warning for the most critical limitation. Every sentence adds necessary operational context without repetition.

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?

It fully covers the search scope and result interpretation, and the output schema covers return shape, but it omits parameter semantics and does not route the agent among sibling tools. For a 5-parameter search tool, this leaves some practical 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, but it only implies the meaning of 'query' through phrases like 'If a query comes back empty.' It never explains days, sources, max_tokens, or limit_per_source, leaving the agent to guess their behaviors and interactions.

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 opening sentence names a specific operation and resource: searching archived headlines across every source that carried a story. It clearly distinguishes archive search from a live feed, though it never names sibling tools explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use versus alternative guidance; it does not mention wire_latest, wire_read, or wire_sources or state which tool to choose for current headlines or reading articles. The retry/transliteration advice is about query formulation, not tool selection.

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