Dageno AI MCP

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that prompts are created and a latest list is returned, but it does not disclose whether the operation is atomic, what happens on partial failure, permission requirements, idempotency, or the structure of the returned list. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and return behavior, though the phrase 'latest prompt data list' is slightly awkward. It is efficient and every word earns its place.

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 batch creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested input structure, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on response format, error handling, atomicity, and duplicate behavior. The schema provides the input structure, but the description does not offer sufficient context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not mention the 'items' array or the fields topic, prompt, regions, and language, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter explanation.

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 the specific verb 'create' with the resource 'prompts' and clearly indicates batch scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like batch_delete_prompts and batch_update_prompts. It also mentions the return of 'latest prompt data list,' giving a clear indication of the output.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as individual creation or other batch operations. The batch context is implied but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given, and no alternative tools are mentioned.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'delete' without mentioning that the operation is destructive, irreversible, or what happens on invalid IDs or partial failures. This adds minimal context beyond the action itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core operation and the input type, making it easy to parse.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the description states the essential operation, but it lacks behavioral details such as idempotency, error handling, and irreversibility. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally viable but not fully complete for nuanced execution.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description merely repeats 'by IDs' without explaining ID provenance, format constraints, or behavior for nonexistent IDs. The single parameter is obvious from the tool name, so the description adds little meaning beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 ('delete') and resource ('prompts') with the batch scope and input method ('by IDs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_create_prompts, batch_get_prompt_by_ids, and batch_update_prompts.

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 an agent needs to delete multiple prompts by IDs, but it does not provide explicit context or exclusions, such as when to use another tool or any prerequisites. The sibling tool names suggest alternatives, but no direct guidance is given.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without any details on rate limits, response format, error behavior, or read-only confirmation, which is insufficient for a batch operation.

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 concise sentence, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient but slightly over-terse, lacking any elaboration, though no words are wasted.

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 batch getter, the absence of output schema and annotations means the description must explain what is returned, limits, or usage context. It does not, leaving the agent with only a name and schema as guidance, which is minimal but barely adequate for a trivial 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The only parameter 'ids' is mentioned indirectly ('by IDs') without any clarification of format, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema already stores, adding minimal value.

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 action ('batch get') and resource ('prompt details by IDs'), making the purpose evident. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_prompts, but the focus on 'by IDs' implies a specific use case, yielding a clear if not fully differentiated purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_prompts. The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool 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?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool returns latest prompt data, but does not clarify whether updates are full overwrites or partial merges, what happens to missing fields, permission requirements, idempotency, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action and return value. It is appropriately concise for simplicity, though it is minimal in content. It does not waste words but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 batch mutation tool with a nested array parameter and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits input semantics, request size limits (maxItems=100), return data format, and error handling. Sibling tool names provide some context, but the description lacks sufficient detail to be considered complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain that 'items' is an array of prompt update objects. While the schema itself is relatively self-explanatory with field names and required markers, the description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('batch update') and the resource ('prompts'), and the 'batch' modifier distinguishes it from single-update tools. The additional note about returning latest prompt data is useful. It aligns well with sibling batch_create and batch_delete tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_create_prompts or batch_delete_prompts. It does not mention any prerequisites, edge cases, or circumstances that would favor this tool over others. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior; however, it only restates the tool name. It does not mention pagination, filtering, required parameters, authentication, or any side effects, so the agent has no insight into what the tool does beyond its label.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It offers no structural value, such as key constraints or examples, and is not 'front-loaded' with useful information because it contains no information beyond the title.

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 (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what backlink opportunities are, how to use the tool, or what the response will contain, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. With 15 parameters (4 required) and no guidance on how to fill them, the agent cannot understand meaning, formats, or relationships among parameters. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptive detail.

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 'Get backlink opportunities.' is a direct restatement of the tool title and provides no differentiation from sibling tools like get_community_opportunities or get_content_opportunities. It conveys the verb and resource but adds no specificity about scope or purpose beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent without any decision support for selecting this tool among its siblings.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. Minimal transparency beyond the name.

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 extremely short, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It largely restates the title without adding useful detail, so it doesn't earn its place as a valuable explanation.

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 input schema and no output schema, the description must provide all context, but it doesn't specify what 'brand base information' actually contains. It's incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about the tool's purpose and return value.

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 schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since none exist.

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 clear verb ('Get') and a resource ('brand base information'), but the resource is vague and unspecific. It doesn't explain what 'base information' includes or how it differs from sibling tools like get_keyword_volume or get_geo_analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single generic statement with no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get citation domain list,' which gives no details about pagination, required parameters, output structure, or side effects. The behavior is essentially opaque.

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 one sentence but is under-specified and tautological, restating the tool name without adding meaningful context. It is too brief to be useful and does not 'earn its place' because it contributes no information beyond the title.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain required input semantics, return data, or any behavioral context, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description mentions none of the 10 parameters. It does not explain the meaning of startAt, endAt, domain, topics, keyword, regions, page, pageSize, platforms, or topicIds, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.

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 and resource ('Get citation domain list'), indicating it retrieves a list of citation domains. However, it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings like get_citation_urls or get_prompt_citation_domains, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, filtering by date range, or any exclusions, so the agent receives no direction on tool 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?

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It only communicates a read operation, but fails to disclose pagination options, required date range, or output format. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 tersely written, but underspecified for a 10-parameter tool. It communicates the generic action without any structured detail, making it more under-specification than effective conciseness.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is wholly inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, filtering semantics, or required inputs.

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% and the description mentions no parameters. With 10 parameters including required startAt/endAt, the description provides no semantic help beyond schema property names.

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 'Get citation URL list' clearly states the tool retrieves citation URLs. It is specific in verb+resource but does not distinguish from sibling tool get_prompt_citation_urls, which may overlap in scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_citation_domains or get_prompt_citation_urls. The close sibling relationships make this omission notable.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' but reveals nothing about pagination, required parameters, filtering semantics, output structure, or side effects. With zero behavioral detail, the agent cannot anticipate the tool's actions or requirements.

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, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It does not front-load useful information; it simply repeats the tool name. Every word fails to earn its place.

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 (15 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain what 'community opportunities' are, how to use the parameters, or what output to expect, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the 15 parameters (e.g., page, pageSize, startAt, endAt, platforms, sentiment). The description adds no meaning to the bare schema, which itself lacks parameter descriptions, leaving all parameter semantics unexplained.

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 'Get community opportunities.' is a direct restatement of the tool name and title, providing no additional specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_content_opportunities' or 'get_backlink_opportunities', and the phrase 'community opportunities' remains undefined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent entirely without direction for tool 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description offers zero behavioral insight. It does not disclose read-only vs. mutating behavior, pagination, response format, rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds no value beyond the structured fields.

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?

While the description is short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence is a tautology that wastes the agent's attention without providing any substantive content. There is no structure or front-loading of useful information.

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?

This is a complex 15-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description should explain the purpose, filtering capabilities, and return value structure, but it fails to address any of these. It is completely inadequate for safe and effective 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?

With 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining parameter meanings and relationships. Instead, it says nothing about any parameter, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of fields like 'promptId', 'withCompetitors', or 'sentiment'.

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 'Get content opportunities.' is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title. It does not explain what constitutes a content opportunity, what the tool returns, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_backlink_opportunities or get_community_opportunities.

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 versus alternatives. It mentions no prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent without situational context.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, read-only vs. write behavior, rate limits, or output format. The phrase 'Execute' implies running something, but nothing is disclosed about what happens during execution, whether it mutates state, or what the response looks like. This is a severe transparency gap.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise writing. The single sentence adds no value beyond the tool name and fails to earn its place. It is comparable to the 'Process' example, which scored 2 for being too vague.

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 high complexity (nested objects, two required parameters, no output schema) and zero annotation coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about expected inputs, outputs, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema and sibling context, which is insufficient.

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 input schema is complex with nested objects (target, analysis) and many properties, but the description offers zero explanation of any parameter. It doesn't clarify what 'target', 'analysis', 'metrics', or 'matrix' mean or how they should be used. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics entirely dependent on the schema alone.

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 'Execute GEO analysis query.' uses a vague verb 'execute' and an ambiguous resource 'GEO analysis query'. It does not explain what the analysis entails, what kind of results are produced, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_keyword_volume or get_topics. The description essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Sibling tools have varied purposes, but no comparative context is provided.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions an important cost factor ('Each keyword consumes 1 credit'), which is valuable information not available elsewhere. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, error handling, or return format. The description adds some transparency but not comprehensive context.

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 two concise sentences. It leads with the action, states the purpose, and then adds the credit cost as a final note. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core function and a key cost implication. It doesn't clarify the shape of the return value, but the phrase 'Get search volume' implies the output. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention limits or typical response behavior.

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 only parameter is 'keywords,' and the schema provides its type (array of strings) and constrains it (minItems: 1). The description merely says 'a list of keywords,' which essentially repeats the schema without adding practical details like maximum list size, formatting, or examples. Since schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), the description should compensate but does not.

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 function: 'Get search volume for a list of keywords.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (search volume for keywords), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_seo_traffic or get_topics. The additional context about search demand and content planning reinforces its purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'to help evaluate search demand and prioritize content planning.' While it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, the context is specific enough to guide an agent. No exclusions are mentioned, but the intended use case is clear.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It does not disclose pagination behavior, date-range semantics, required filters (promptId, startAt, endAt), or any side effects or permissions. 'Get' implies a read operation, but no further transparency is offered.

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, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential context that should accompany a tool with seven parameters and no schema descriptions, making the brevity a deficiency.

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 parameters, required arguments, and sibling context, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the relationship to get_citation_domains, the meaning of the required date range, pagination, or any filtering parameters, leaving a 7-parameter tool almost entirely undocumented.

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% and the description mentions none of the seven parameters. The required fields (promptId, startAt, endAt) and optional filters (page, pageSize, regions, platforms) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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 ('Get') and resource ('citation domain list for a prompt'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_citation_domains (global domains without prompt) and get_prompt_citation_urls (URLs vs domains).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs the similarly named get_citation_domains or get_prompt_citation_urls. The description only states the core purpose without contextual or exclusionary information.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention read-only nature, pagination, date-range filtering, or any side effects expected from the parameters.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, though it earns credit for efficiency.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a bare statement. It lacks essential context about usage, parameter roles, and expected behavior, making it inadequate for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., promptId, startAt, endAt). The agent cannot infer parameter meanings from the tool description.

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 ('Get'), identifies the resource ('citation URL list'), and scopes it to a prompt, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_citation_urls and get_prompt_citation_domains.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_citation_urls or get_prompt_citation_domains. The description provides no context for tool 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that the tool retrieves data ('Get'), but provides no details about pagination, filtering, output format, or other behaviors. This is minimal transparency beyond the name.

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, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently structured, though extremely sparse, earning a high score for conciseness but not for richness.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'query fanout list' is, what the parameters do, or what the response contains, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the seven parameters. Only 'for a prompt' hints at the promptId parameter; startAt, endAt, page, pageSize, platforms, and regions are left completely unexplained.

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 ('Get') and resource ('query fanout list for a prompt'), which clearly states the tool's basic action and scope. It differentiates from sibling tools by referencing the unique 'query fanout' concept, though the term itself is not defined.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only implies usage for retrieving a query fanout list for a prompt, without contextualizing against sibling analytics tools.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination, filtering, sorting, or any side effects. The description is too terse to inform an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 only one sentence and essentially restates the title 'Get Prompts'. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative, providing no detail that would help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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?

Despite having 13 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides almost no context. It fails to explain what the response looks like, how pagination works, or what the required date range means. This is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no meaning to any of them. It never mentions page, pageSize, startAt, endAt, or any filter parameters, leaving the agent entirely dependent on the bare 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 'Get prompts list' clearly states the verb and resource: it retrieves a list of prompts. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like batch_get_prompt_by_ids or clarify the scope of the list (e.g., all prompts vs filtered).

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention the required parameters (page, pageSize, startAt, endAt) or any intended use cases.

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 description discloses 'Each request consumes 1 credit,' which is a useful behavioral trait given the absence of annotations. However, it does not cover rate limits, authentication, or aggregation details, leaving gaps. It adds some transparency beyond the bare minimum.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a cost note. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description provides basic output hints (traffic metrics, keywords, whois) and the credit cost. However, it lacks parameter format details, error behavior, and assumes knowledge of what 'aggregate' means. Adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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 provides no description for the 'domain' parameter (0% coverage). The description only repeats the parameter name ('by domain') without explaining format, examples, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'DataHouse SEO traffic aggregate data', and the scope 'by domain'. It lists specific data types (traffic metrics, top keywords, whois fields), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_keyword_volume or get_backlink_opportunities.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to imply usage when SEO traffic data is needed. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, providing only implied context.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get topics list.' It does not indicate read-only behavior, side effects, required permissions, pagination, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with eight parameters.

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?

At four words, the description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It omits essential context about parameters, filters, and return values, so it does not earn its place as a useful explanation.

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 (eight parameters, two required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It neither explains the function beyond the nominal action nor clarifies what output to expect, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has eight parameters with zero description coverage, and the description adds no information about what any parameter means or how they should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get topics list' states a clear verb and resource, identifying this as a read operation for topics. However, it is vague about what specific topics are being listed and how this differs from other get_* tools, though no sibling tool has 'topics' in its name. It is more specific than a pure tautology but lacks the detail to be fully clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context on scenarios, prerequisites, or differences from sibling tools like get_prompts or get_brand_info, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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