search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It describes a read-only search operation and mentions optional scoping, but does not detail pagination, rate limits, or result format. The behavior is implied but not fully disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It has no wasted words, but could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose. It is appropriately sized for a search tool.

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 has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but does not explain all filtering options or pagination behavior. The schema covers the details, but the description could mention additional filters like collection and mime_type. It is minimally complete.

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 schema coverage is high (88%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning date and site scoping but does not clarify parameters like 'max_items' or 'collection'. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 performs full-text search across the Portuguese Web Archive, specifying the verb 'search' and the resource 'Arquivo.pt'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extract_text' or 'get_screenshot' by focusing on search functionality.

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 a clear use case: finding pages that ever contained given terms, with optional date or site scoping. Although it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context of sibling tools helps differentiate. The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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