wayback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool returns archived snapshots and that a wildcard lists everything under a site, but it does not describe response format, pagination, rate limits, or whether snapshots are metadata or content.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler. The wildcard example earns its place, though the first sentence is a fragment rather than a complete statement.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits response format, semantics for four parameters, and any broader usage context beyond the wildcard trick.

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. It only clarifies the url parameter through the wildcard example; limit, year_to, year_from, and newest_first are left entirely to their self-explanatory names.

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 identifies the resource as archived snapshots from the Wayback Machine and mentions wildcard listing, which is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling recon tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' so it reads as a noun phrase rather than a clear action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as dns_lookup or http_headers. The only usage hint is the wildcard example, which is about input syntax, not selection context.

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