scan_official_source

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 nicely sets expectation that output is unverified leads, but it does not mention side effects, network/failure behavior, or output structure. Transparency is partial.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and output front-loaded, plus a high-value caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a minimal but usable mental model: provide a URL and get matches/links as leads. It omits output shape, timeout semantics, and possible side effects, leaving some uncertainty for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys that `url` is the official-source target and hints that `terms` is used for keyword matching, but it does not define optionality/format of `terms` or the meaning of `timeout_ms`.

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 identifies a specific task: take one explicit public-official-source URL and return keyword matches plus candidate links. It implies a narrower scope than discovery or search siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 line 'Results are leads, not verification' sets a clear boundary for how the output should be used. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling search or discovery tools, nor does it describe optional-parameter usage.

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