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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only the qualifier 'verified', implying curated/authoritative data, and says nothing about return format, completeness, or whether some platforms may be missing.

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?

A single sentence with the usage trigger front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the title. The platform list is long but each item is informative rather than filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to decide when to call it and what domain of links to expect. Nothing essential is missing.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry. Baseline 4 applies; the tool is invoked unconditionally.

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 names a specific resource (verified external citations, official profile URLs, primary source links) and enumerates the exact platforms covered, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings 'ask' and 'get-section', which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: 'when the user wants verified external citations, official profile URLs, or primary source links.' It does not state when not to use it or name a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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