bososo_get_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation requires real server-side processing and is slow, that bursty requests trigger a security check returning CAPTCHA_REQUIRED, and that this error is not retryable by the agent. Latency expectations, failure mode, error code, and human-in-the-loop requirement are all surfaced.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its input source, then prerequisites, then operational hazards. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, provenance, latency, rate-limit/error handling) with no filler or repetition.

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?

Covers input provenance, expected latency, the CAPTCHA_REQUIRED failure mode, and retry policy — everything needed to invoke and recover correctly, and the return value (share link) is named despite no output schema. The only soft spot is that waitSeconds is not tied to the described long-running/CAPTCHA behavior, though the schema documents it fully.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema for `token` by constraining its provenance (must originate from bososo_search, non-constructible). `waitSeconds` is left entirely to the schema, and its relationship to the long server-side wait is not connected in the prose.

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 concrete verb+resource: exchange a bososo_search token for a savable share link, and explicitly frames itself as step 2 of the flow, distinguishing it from the sibling bososo_search (step 1). The provenance constraint ('token can only come from bososo_search, cannot be constructed') removes any ambiguity about what input is valid.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite tool (bososo_search) and the step ordering, and gives a clear when-not rule: on CAPTCHA_REQUIRED the agent must stop retrying and hand off to the user in a browser. Both the trigger condition and the required alternative behavior are stated, not inferred.

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