Archive result detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context about data availability ('stats are null for most rows before 1991') and truthfulness ('never synthesised'), which goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations.

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?

Two sentences cover purpose, scope, data caveats, and plan requirements without redundancy. The 'honestly' adverbial aside is slightly informal but does not waste space; it reinforces the 'never synthesised' claim.

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 simple single-fetch tool with an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: scope, historical period, data quality, and access plan. It leaves no major gaps, though it might have mentioned the relationship to search_archive_matches, which the schema already covers.

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%, and the schema clearly documents the single parameter (archive_match_id). The description does not add any additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning 'One result from the results archive (1968–2022)', which with the name get_archive_match specifies a single-match retrieval. It distinguishes from list-oriented siblings like search_archive_matches by emphasizing 'one result' and the historical range.

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?

Usage is implied: 'One result from the results archive' suggests it is for fetching a specific archived match, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The plan requirement (BASIC or History) is a condition, not an alternative guidance.

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