get_official_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well: it reveals that results are 'verified', that evidence accompanies the URLs, and that it has an explicit failure mode ('says the site could not be confirmed'). It stops short of disclosing data freshness, rate limits, or whether it performs live web lookups, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently covers both the evidence behavior and the not-confirmed fallback.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the return payload (verified URLs plus evidence), and the negative case. Minor gaps remain — no explicit routing to verify_url for URL-shaped inputs and no detail on the evidence format — but nothing an agent needs to make the call 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the parameter with an illustrative example ('Ollama', 'Claude Code'). The description echoes 'by name' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up'), a specific resource ('verified official website'), and a precise scope ('software product, AI tool, or company by name'). The 'by name' phrasing cleanly differentiates it from the sibling verify_url, which presumably checks a URL rather than finding one.

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 implies the use case: fetching a known product/tool/company's official site by name. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with verify_url or tells the agent when to choose one over the other (e.g., 'if you already have a URL, use verify_url instead'). The guidance is present only by inference.

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