find_website

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the search source (Bing public RSS), the matching/filtering criteria (genuine name match with distinguishing word, no directories/social sites), and the failure mode (honest 'not found' with a search URL). It does not cover rate limits, auth, or pagination, but for this discovery tool the key behaviors are present.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds selection criteria and return behavior, followed by an Args list with examples. Every section earns its place and there is no filler, though the Args list is a necessary duplication given the empty schema descriptions.

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 return values need not be explained, but the description still summarises them. With no annotations, it covers behavior, parameters, and sibling differentiation reasonably well. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., multiple candidates, rate limits), but is largely complete for a lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters with examples: 'business' as a name like 'Driver Plumbing & Heating' and 'city' as a UK city like 'Leicester'. This adds valuable format and locale context beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('a business's own website'), and names the method (Bing public RSS search). It distinguishes itself from audit-oriented siblings by focusing on discovery of a URL rather than auditing a known site.

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 implies the tool is used when a business's website needs to be discovered, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over siblings like audit_website or run_full_audit, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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