Archive: Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the scraper intentionally pauses outside registration and add/drop weeks, so a stale date is expected rather than an error — a genuinely useful disclosure that prevents misreading the result.

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 tight sentences: the first lists exactly what is reported, the second pre-empts the only likely misinterpretation (an old date). It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return fields and doing so is mildly redundant. However, it adds the interpretive caveat about scraping pauses that the schema cannot convey, making the definition complete and safe to act on for a no-param status call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per calibration the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly spends no words on non-existent inputs.

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 states a specific resource (the archive scraper's operational status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: last run, last success, section count, partial-run flag, failed branches and data age. An agent can distinguish this status/diagnostic tool from the data-querying archive_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'Informational only' signal intent and the staleness caveat steers interpretation of the result, but the description never states when an agent should call this versus other archive tools or what to do with the output. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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