search_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the output consists of links the user opens in a browser and enumerates the target sources, but it says nothing about the response shape beyond that (mitigated by the presence of an output 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?

It is a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Ready search links ... in the sources that take a search URL'), which is good. However, the long parenthetical source list with 'and others' adds length without much decision value for an agent.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, so the remaining burden is parameter and usage clarity. Given seven parameters at 14% schema coverage and no routing guidance against search_online, the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 14%: of seven parameters, only 'variants' is documented in the schema. The description compensates partially by tying the tool to a name and its variants, but gives no meaning for place, country, year_from or year_to, which are the parameters most likely to be misused.

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 clear verb+resource: it produces ready-to-use search links for a name across named genealogy sources (FamilySearch, Internet Archive, Find a Grave, Arolsen, etc.). An agent can tell it generates links rather than performing a search. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_online, which is the main missed opportunity.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for building search links 'for a name, with the name's variants.' There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, and no reference to the likely-overlapping sibling search_online, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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