glo_links

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the non-obvious behaviors that matter: no network call, free-text matches ANY word and is ranked, and pre-July-2026 links now degrade to the home page. These are exactly the quirks an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Roughly 60 words, purpose front-loaded in the first clause with the operational caveat immediately after. Every sentence carries information; the only minor cost is the fragmented line breaks rather than a single flowing statement.

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 conveys the return artifact ('a link ... for the user to open') and that no network call occurs. Combined with the ranking and citation caveats, an agent has everything needed to build and present the link 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: it explains that search_text matching is per-word and ranked, that state and document_category should accompany free text, and that document_id links a single record. That goes beyond the neutral schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Build a link to BLM's General Land Office Records site for the user to open,' and adds 'No network call' to distinguish it from data-fetching siblings like find_land_entry_file. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 substantive operating guidance: add a state and a category to counter GLO's ANY-word matching, note there is no surname field, and prefer citing a patent by accession/document number/state/signature date rather than a link when it predates July 2026. It never states when to prefer this tool over a sibling such as find_land_entry_file or plss_locate, so there are no explicit alternatives.

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