search_official_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and source scope; it does not reveal the return format, any restrictions, read-only status, or potential side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the tool name.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary details. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the search returns, but it does not. It also lacks usage guidance and any caveats. Given the simplicity of the tool, more context (e.g., result type, how to interpret results) is needed for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 50%: the 'topic' parameter has a description, but 'max_results' does not. The tool description does not explain either parameter's usage, format, or semantics. It merely repeats the concept of 'tema', leaving 'max_results' unexplained and offering no additional meaning beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('busca') with a clear resource ('fuentes oficiales y confiables') and scope ('tema de Venezuela'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_claim or get_fakenews_patterns. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is appropriate for fact-checking or that it should be used before verify_claim/or instead of generating reports. No exclusions or conditional context are given.

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