archive_and_cite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses non-blocking latency (<50ms), background execution, the 24h dedupe cache that yields an immediate complete citation, and explicit non-behaviors (no page-content fetch, no LLM calls). It also enumerates the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core compound action and latency, then flows into the branching behavior and caveats. It is fairly dense but every sentence contributes; the trailing 'Response fields:' list is slightly list-like but justified given the absence of an output schema.

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?

For a 3-param async tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the call semantics, the async follow-up path via get_archive_status, the caching shortcut, and the return payload. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and handle both response shapes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale beyond the schema: it explains that the title must be supplied by the caller precisely because the tool does not fetch content, and that format only affects the `formatted` field. That connects the parameters to the tool's behavior rather than restating field docs.

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 names a specific compound action (archive + return a paste-ready citation) and distinguishes itself from the sibling archive_url by the 'AND get back a paste-ready citation' clause. It also clarifies the two possible outcomes (complete vs pending) so an agent knows exactly what the call produces.

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?

It gives clear operational routing: if a task_id is returned, call get_archive_status later to finish the citation. That is a genuine when-to-use-next instruction. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer this over archive_url, leaving that comparison to inference.

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