public

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about the page content (dated evidence without naming sources, what's known/unknown) and notes no account is needed. This goes beyond the structured annotations, providing useful behavioral detail.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One published idea as its public page shows it') and then efficiently enumerates the content components. No filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers everything an agent needs: the resource scope, content detail, and access requirement. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers the page's contents, making it fully adequate 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 schema already fully describes the slug parameter, including its source and constraints (coverage 100%). The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the tool reads one idea in full and enumerates the specific content sections (need, build, score parts, evidence, unknowns). This distinguishes it from siblings: latest_ideas lists ideas, search_ideas searches, list_categories lists categories, while get_idea retrieves a single idea's full page.

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 usage when you have a slug and want the full public page, mentioning the slug source (latest_ideas or URL). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The absence of exclusion criteria makes this merely implied, not explicit.

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, idempotentHint, and no destructive action, so the safety is clear. The description adds useful context: no account needed, public data, and the inclusion of score/category. It does not mention limits or default behavior beyond what schema covers, but that is minor.

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 concise and informative, with the key purpose and usage carved into two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core idea and includes practical guidance without verbosity.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the filter and sort options, and the lack of account requirement. It could mention default sorting behavior (newest), but the schema covers default for sort. Adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, and the enums and descriptions for sort, limit, and category are explicit. The description adds a hint about sorting for strongest and category filtering, reinforcing but not significantly adding beyond the schema.

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 lists newest business ideas from public demand with score and category, which is specific and distinct from siblings like get_idea (single idea), search_ideas (search), and list_categories (categories). It includes scope (public, no account) and key attributes.

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 states that no account is needed, implies a read-only listing context, and suggests filtering by category and sorting by score for strongest. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose and filters are clear enough for selection.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description itself adds no further behavioral detail, such as ordering, whether unused categories are included, or return format. Given the trivial zero-parameter read-only nature, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words or redundancy with the title. It could be more action-oriented, but it is appropriately compact for a zero-parameter list operation.

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 zero-parameter, read-only category listing, the description plus annotations provide enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not specify the output schema or result details, but the purpose and safety profile are clear enough that no critical guidance 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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to document parameter meaning. The schema coverage is effectively complete for an empty parameter set, and the description usefully clarifies what the returned 'categories' represent.

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 the resource as 'categories' and scopes it to the categories 'ideas are filed under,' which is a clear enough concept. The title supplies the 'List' verb, so the operation is unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_idea and search_ideas because those concern ideas, not the category taxonomy.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_idea, latest_ideas, or search_ideas. The intended usage is only implied by the resource name, so the agent must infer that this is for browsing category names rather than retrieving ideas.

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 idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that results are limited to published ideas and that no authentication is required, which is useful but doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or result shape.

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 no filler; the core search behavior 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?

For a simple read-only search with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly sufficient: it specifies the search target and public access. It omits response format, but the tool's name and purpose imply returned ideas.

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 explains that 'query' matches words in the title or one-liner, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter's effect on result count.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('published ideas'), and search scope ('by words in the title or one-liner'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_idea (single fetch) and latest_ideas (browse recent).

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?

Provides context that only published ideas are searched and that no account is needed, implying public access. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention exclusions.

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