archive_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: no mention of rate limits, authentication, result shape, or how paging interacts with the result set. 'Search ... for items' is semantically empty beyond the verb.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but it is arguably under-specified rather than tight; there is nothing after the core claim to earn the brevity.

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 search endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the source, and pagination is covered by the schema. It omits what a result item contains and how total results/paging limits behave, which an agent would benefit from.

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 100%, so all four parameters (query, page, limit, mediatype) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format hints, no example queries, and no guidance on mediatype values, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (Internet Archive / archive.org items), so the agent knows this queries archive.org rather than arbitrary text. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like archive_metadata or wayback_check, which is the only gap.

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 guidance and never names the alternative tools (archive_metadata for metadata retrieval, wayback_check for URL snapshots) that share the Archive.org domain. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely on its own.

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