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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (structured JSON with executable_url), supported source types, and exclusions. However, it does not mention error handling, auth requirements, or rate limits, which would be helpful for a complete behavioral profile.

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 concise and well-structured: main action first, then return type, source types, exclusions, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 5 parameters (1 required), full schema coverage, and an output schema (so return format is expected), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, behavior, exclusions, and alternatives. Minor lacking on error handling or permissions but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds context about source types but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resolves natural-language queries into executable source URLs, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like origingrid_plan and origingrid_execute_batch by specifying it is a lightweight alternative for direct resolution. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (direct URL resolution without multi-step plans) and when to use alternatives (for complex queries, use origingrid_plan). Also clarifies what it does NOT do (proxy-fetch or submit to search engines), which prevents misuse.

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