archivegrid_search_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces that with 'makes no network call' and adds genuinely new behavioral context: OCLC forbids automated access, fielded indexes only cover catalogue/EAD records, HTML/PDF matches keywords only, ~90% of hits are collection-level WorldCat records, and microfilm holdings are usually absent.

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 core behavior (build a link, no network call) followed by coverage caveats. Five sentences all carry information, though the result-coverage caveats could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description still makes the return clear (an address to open, not fetched content) and sets expectations about what searches will and will not surface. For a 14-parameter URL builder with full schema coverage, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value on top: the distinction that fielded indexes cover catalogue and EAD records only while HTML/PDF finding aids match keywords only tells the agent when to use fielded params (person, place, topic, archive) versus the free-text keywords param.

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 and resource: 'Build an ArchiveGrid search address for the user to open,' plus the key qualifier 'Makes no network call.' It also positions itself against SNAC ('ArchiveGrid often finds what SNAC cannot'), though it does not name any of the actual sibling tools (search_collections, search_names) for direct disambiguation.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance — hand the link to the user, never fetch it — and explains when this source is preferable (place/subject-known collections, HTML/PDF finding aids). It does not explicitly say which sibling tool to choose instead when SNAC is the better fit.

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