search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and scoping options, omitting important traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or result structure. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the input 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey essential purpose and usage, front-loading the main verb and resource. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It lacks return format details, pagination guidance (though offset parameter hints), and error handling, which are important for an agent. However, the schema compensates somewhat.

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?

The input schema covers 88% of parameters with descriptions, providing strong baselines. The description adds only a high-level reference to date and site scoping, which does not improve understanding beyond what the schema offers. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 states the tool is for 'Full-text search across the Portuguese Web Archive (Arquivo.pt)' and specifies its use for finding pages containing given terms. It succinctly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., image_search, list_versions) by narrowing the domain to full-text search.

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 provides clear context: 'Use for finding pages that ever contained given terms, optionally scoped by date range or site.' This implies the primary use case, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or point to alternatives, though the sibling list helps differentiate.

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