get_archive_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates all four status values with meaning, notes FAILED means retries are exhausted, and that a url lookup returns the latest task regardless of status. It omits auth/rate-limit expectations, but the state semantics are genuinely informative.

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 purpose, then the input rule, then status semantics, then next-action advice. Slightly long because of the status enumeration, but every clause carries actionable information and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, status meanings, the result_url return value, and polling cadence. Only the FAILED/retry_task handoff is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint the schema does not encode: the schema shows zero required parameters, yet the description states 'at least one required'. That extra rule materially affects correct invocation.

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 ('Check the status of an archive task') and explicitly ties its inputs to the sibling archive_url ('task_id returned by archive_url'), so an agent can separate it from archive_url/retry_task/archive_and_cite without reading schemas.

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?

Gives clear invocation rules (supply task_id OR url, at least one) and follow-up guidance (use result_url as citation when SUCCESS; re-poll after a few seconds when PENDING/PROCESSING). It does not, however, route the agent anywhere for FAILED even though retry_task is a sibling, which is the one obvious missing branch.

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