check_wayback

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that a missing or recent first snapshot indicates a new page and that it serves as a legal proxy for account age. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). However, it does not disclose potential rate limits or error behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by interpretation and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and usage. With an output schema present, the return values do not need to be explained. However, it lacks details on potential edge cases (e.g., unreachable URLs) or the exact nature of the first snapshot.

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% per context, but the description does not discuss the parameters in detail. It only mentions URLs by example, and the response_format parameter is not addressed. The description should have compensated for the lack of schema descriptions but did not.

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 checks Internet Archive history of a URL with examples (LinkedIn profile, company site) and explains its purpose as a proxy for account age. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_url and check_domain by specifying this is for web archive history.

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 explicitly says 'Use when: you have a profile/company URL and want an age lower-bound.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, which are implied by sibling tool names.

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