Atako

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and not open-world, so no contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the data is publicly available and no account is needed, which tells the agent this is a low-risk, always-accessible call. It doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits, but the tool is simple and parameterless.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action (

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 parameterless, read-only lookup, the description is complete: it names the exact data returned, states the access requirement, and distinguishes itself from siblings. No additional context is needed 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms no input is required by explaining there is no account requirement and the data is public. There is nothing additional the description needs to clarify about parameters.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('Atako's public subscription plans') and details the content (name, price, included credits/agents, credit conversion rate). The main action is unmistakable, and the distinction from siblings like list_integration_pages and list_use_cases is self-evident.

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 phrase 'No account required' gives an explicit access condition, and the scope ('public subscription plans') clarifies when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the content is specific enough that confusion with sibling tools is unlikely.

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

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

Beyond the `readOnlyHint: true` annotation, the description discloses that this is a public-facing, no-authentication operation and that the pages are marketing content. This adds behavioral context such as authentication needs and the public/account-specific scope—information the annotation does not encode. It stops short of describing pagination-related response behavior, but the schema covers the offset/limit inputs.

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 and a short ellipsis: one clause describes purpose, one clause draws the crucial difference with the sibling tool, then a brief filter note and a no-account-required flag. Every sentence contributes, no fluff, and the most important distinction is front-loaded.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main context an agent needs: it states the domain (public marketing pages), the authentication scope, the difference from a sibling, and the filtering behavior. A fully complete description might also sketch the return shape, but "public marketing pages describing each supported integration" gives enough content context for the agent to know what to expect.

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%, so `limit`, `offset`, and `category` are already fully documented in the input schema. The description only adds the lightweight phrase "Optionally filtered by category," which does not carry the full meaning of the parameter semantics. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination: "Lists Atako's public marketing pages describing each supported integration." It also explicitly calls out the sibling tool `list_integration_catalog` and explains that it shows account-specific connection status, making the purpose and the distinction clear even before opening a schema.

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 gives an explicit usage boundary by saying this tool is "distinct from the authenticated `list_integration_catalog` tool, which reflects real connection status for the caller's account." It also states "No account required," telling the agent when to pick this public listing versus an authenticated alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful context by stating that this is marketing content and requires no account, which clarifies access and intent beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, resource, optional filter, and access context. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 simple, read-only list tool, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, optional filtering, and the fact that no account is required. With no output schema present, a slightly richer return-shape note could elevate it, but the absence is not a major gap for such a straightforward tool.

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%, so the schema already fully documents limit, offset, and department. The description's mention of optional department filtering adds a small convenience but not material new semantic information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('Atako's published customer use cases/case studies'), and an optional filter dimension. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_pricing and list_integration_pages, which target different content.

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 clearly conveys that this is public marketing content requiring no account, which gives practical usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a simple read-only list tool.

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