status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'bounded' qualifier and 'archive' scope, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, result shape, or any archive-specific constraints, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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 text is front-loaded and brief, with no filler. It is not merely a tautology, but it is so abbreviated that it sacrifices useful detail, making it minimally acceptable rather than well-rounded.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too much open: what 'status' means, what kind of archive is retrieved, how results are ordered, and why it should be preferred over overlapping siblings. The simple parameter list does not compensate for this absence.

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 explain limit and offset, but it only says 'bounded.' An agent cannot tell what the values mean, what defaults do, or how pagination behaves.

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 a read-only archive-retrieval operation with bounded results, so an agent can infer the tool's basic function. However, 'Status' is not elaborated and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like query, timeline, or get_record, all of which could be archive retrievals.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives or exclusions are named despite a large sibling set (query, search, timeline, episodes, get_record). The only hint is that this is bounded and read-only, which is not enough to choose it over a sibling.

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