Research With Source Receipts

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint) by detailing what the tool returns: 'bounded page evidence, per-source verification status, citations, failures, and recovery'. This aligns with the annotations and provides useful transparency about the tool's output and safety profile.

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 three sentences long, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and purpose, then adds key differentiators and output details. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 1 required, output schema available, annotations present), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning the parameter limits (e.g., max 6 sources) or linking to the output schema, but the schema already provides that detail, so the description is sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant new information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the preference for direct URLs, which is a usage guideline rather than parameter semantics, so no extra value is added to parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Search and open source pages in one call' for specific use cases like comparisons, recommendations, and factual lookups. It distinguishes itself from a basic search tool by noting it does not treat result titles as answers, and it enumerates the return types (evidence, verification, citations). This is specific and helpful for an agent.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool, including preferring direct source URLs when known and contrasting with a basic search tool. However, it does not directly compare against sibling tools like minion_verify_app or minion_bun_hunt, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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