manual_assist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'makes no network call', which is valuable. However, it does not describe the format of the returned links, how many links are returned, or any limitations or side effects. Some behavioral context is provided but gaps remain.

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 a single sentence with two clear clauses. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and side-effect profile. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned links look like, how many are generated, or how parameters influence the results. Given the tool's apparent role in an investigation workflow, more detail is necessary for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, and the description does not mention the parameters (name, city, state, maiden, married) at all. The term 'pre-filled search links' implies parameters are used to populate links, but it does not explain how each parameter maps to the links or what values are expected. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 provides pre-filled search links for walled/gated free sources and explicitly notes it makes no network call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like people_search or court_search that likely perform automated searches, though it does not name alternatives directly.

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 'walled/gated free sources' implies this tool is for manual or restricted sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, leaving some ambiguity about its role relative to automated search tools.

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