Find the primary source for a topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'This server does not fetch; your client does.' It also reveals the tool's scope limitation ('what this server deliberately lacks'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema. Minor gaps remain around output format or whether any network call happens, but the key non-fetching behavior is clearly stated.

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 compact and front-loaded: first the purpose, then the use cases, then the critical server-vs-client caveat. The bilingual duplication is purposeful for the audience and not wasteful. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 simple referral tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, and the key server behavior. It does not detail the exact return structure, but the statement 'primary source URLs plus what this server lacks' gives a sufficient mental model. The absence of annotations is partially offset by the explicit server-behavior note.

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%, and both parameters (lang, topic) are already well-described in the schema with examples and enums. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('primary source URLs for a topic, plus what this server deliberately lacks'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_togaf or reference by emphasizing that it returns authoritative sources rather than fetched content. The bilingual phrasing reinforces the same meaning without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'when you doubt an answer here, suspect a newer edition, or need authoritative wording.' This is clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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