Dageno AI MCP

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states batch creation and data return, but does not disclose idempotency, error handling (e.g., partial failures), validation, or whether it overwrites existing data. This lack of behavioral insight leaves the agent underinformed.

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, which is concise but too terse. It wastes the opportunity to provide meaningful details, making it more under-specified than efficiently brief.

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 of the input schema (nested array) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description does not provide sufficient context. It omits return value structure, error behavior, usage patterns, and any guidance on the 'latest' data promise.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. It does not clarify the 'items' array structure, constraints (maxItems: 100, minItems: 1), or fields like topic, prompt, regions, language. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the action ('create') and resource ('prompts'), and mentions returning 'latest prompt data list', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like batch_delete_prompts or batch_update_prompts. However, it lacks specificity about what 'latest' means, preventing a score of 5.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does without contextual advice.

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, and the description only says 'delete', a destructive action, without disclosing side effects, reversibility, or impact on related data. More context is needed.

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 short sentence, very concise and front-loaded with key action and resource. However, it lacks any structured sections or additional helpful 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but misses behavioral context like what happens after deletion, error conditions, or confirmation. Incomplete given lack of annotations.

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 single parameter 'ids' is fully defined in the schema (array of strings, 1-100 items). The description adds 'by IDs' which is already implied by the name and schema, adding no extra meaning.

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 explicitly states the verb 'delete' and resource 'prompts' with 'batch' and 'by IDs', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like batch_create_prompts 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 for deleting multiple prompts by IDs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites.

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 should detail behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation, omitting any mention of idempotency, error handling, or performance implications.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail, making it more under-specified than efficient.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and minimal parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'prompt details' are returned or any usage context.

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 description adds no value beyond the schema for the sole parameter 'ids'. With 0% schema coverage, it fails to explain constraints like max 100 items or the nature of IDs.

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), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like batch_create_prompts or get_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_prompts or other batch operations. The description is purely functional without 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions that latest data is returned, but lacks disclosure on whether updates are partial, idempotent, or any side effects like overwriting fields. Safety and mutation behavior are not addressed.

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 and very concise, but it lacks critical details. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of informativeness, which is appropriate only when schemas and annotations are rich, but here they are not.

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 batch complexity (up to 100 items, multiple fields), the absence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover essential behavioral aspects like error handling, partial updates, and constraints such as min/max items.

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 parameter meanings. The fields 'prompt', 'status', 'regions', and 'topicId' have no textual explanation, leaving the agent to infer from names 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 clearly states the action ('batch update') and resource ('prompts'), and notes the return of latest data. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_create_prompts and batch_delete_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use batch_update_prompts versus alternatives such as batch_create_prompts or individual updates. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or preferred scenarios.

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 the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read operation, any required authentication, rate limits, or output format. The only hint is the 'get' verb, which implies reading.

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, which is under-informative given the tool's complexity. While concise, it lacks necessary detail, making it closer to underspecification 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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to clarify the tool's purpose beyond a minimal phrase, leaving critical context for correct invocation unaddressed.

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%, meaning no property descriptions exist. The tool's description does not explain any of the 15 parameters (e.g., domain, keyword, regions, sentiment). The schema provides names and types only, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names 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 'Get backlink opportunities' specifies a verb ('get') and a resource ('backlink opportunities'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_content_opportunities or get_community_opportunities by resource name. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a backlink opportunity, making it vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., get_content_opportunities, get_community_opportunities). There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions 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?

The description lacks any behavioral disclosure beyond the generic 'Get'. With no annotations, it fails to inform about potential side effects, authentication needs, or what happens if the brand is not found. Critical behavioral traits are omitted.

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, it is under-specified. It does not earn its place as it provides no valuable information beyond a repetition of the tool name. It is not front-loaded with key details that aid selection or invocation.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by fully explaining the tool's purpose and output. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough context to use it effectively.

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 baseline is 4, but the description adds no meaning beyond the name. It does not explain what 'brand base information' includes or what the response contains, leaving the agent with incomplete 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 'Get brand base information' clearly indicates the action (Get) and resource (brand base information), but it is vague as it does not specify what 'base information' includes. It does not distinguish this tool from its siblings like get_citation_domains or get_keyword_volume, which are more specific.

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 the many sibling get_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation.

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 available, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, paginated, or has any side effects, leaving the agent blind to operational details.

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 concise (4 words), it is under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters. Brevity has sacrificed necessary detail, making it insufficient for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 high parameter count (10), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide enough context for correct usage, such as return format, pagination, or filtering 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 input schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no clarification. The agent cannot infer the meaning of required fields like startAt and endAt or optional ones like domain, topics, etc.

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 domain list' is vague. It states verb+resource but does not clarify what a 'citation domain' is or how it differs from sibling tools like get_citation_urls or 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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool over its siblings, no context on prerequisites or alternative methods.

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, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required parameters, pagination, rate limits, or data source. The agent gains no insight beyond the tool 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 overly terse (5 words) and front-loads nothing of value. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is under-specification, not 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?

Given the high parameter count, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine how 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 has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no parameter information. The agent must infer semantics from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name without specifying what citation URLs are or how they differ from similar tools like get_citation_domains or get_prompt_citation_urls.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus siblings or under what conditions (e.g., date range required by startAt/endAt).

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 bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any traits such as pagination, filtering, rate limits, or side effects. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but no further details are given.

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 only three words, it is not appropriately sized. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, failing to earn its place. An effective description should be concise yet informative, but this is under-specification.

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 of 15 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. An AI agent would have no understanding of how to invoke the tool correctly or interpret results.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for its 15 parameters (e.g., page, pageSize, startAt, endAt, etc.). The description adds absolutely no meaning to these parameters, not even a hint about their purpose or format.

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 tautology that merely restates the tool name and title. It does not provide any specific verb or resource differentiation, and among siblings like get_backlink_opportunities or get_content_opportunities, there is no clarity on what makes this tool unique.

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 versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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 behavioral traits disclosed. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but says nothing about side effects, required permissions, or any constraints beyond the input schema.

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?

Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence adds no value and fails to justify its existence.

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 (15 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context on how to use the tool effectively or what the returned opportunities are.

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?

15 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter information, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names alone, many of which are opaque (e.g., $ref types).

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 is a tautology: it restates the exact title 'Get content opportunities' without adding any specificity. It does not differentiate 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?

No usage guidance provided. The tool has many sibling tools, but the description gives no hint about when to use this one versus alternatives.

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 given, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Execute... query', implying a read operation but not confirming. No info on side effects, permissions, or outputs.

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 and uninformative. It lacks key details and fails to front-load critical information, making it insufficient for agent use.

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 complex input schema (2 required nested objects) and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to configure the analysis, or any constraints.

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 complex nested objects (target, analysis) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to parameters; it merely repeats the tool's name. Essential fields like entity, metrics, analysis type are 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 'Execute GEO analysis query' is vague. It uses a specific verb but does not clarify what 'GEO' stands for or how this analysis differs from sibling tools like get_brand_info or get_keyword_volume. The purpose is unclear.

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 sibling tools cover various SEO/analytics functions, but the description does not differentiate this tool or indicate prerequisites.

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 burden. It discloses that each keyword consumes 1 credit, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it does not specify the output format, side effects, or explicit read-only nature beyond the verb 'get'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and credit cost but omits the return value structure and any error handling or limits. It is adequate 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description only says 'list of keywords' without adding any details like maximum array length, string format, or encoding. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Get search volume for a list of keywords' which specifies the verb and resource. It also adds context about evaluating search demand and content planning, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_backlink_opportunities or get_topics.

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 context (evaluating search demand, prioritizing content) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_seo_traffic or get_content_opportunities. No exclusions or alternative names 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?

No annotations are provided; description fails to disclose essential behavioral traits like pagination (page, pageSize), required time range (startAt, endAt), or that it is a read operation. Only states 'get list'.

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?

One sentence is concise but missing critical information. Not a model of conciseness as it sacrifices completeness.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. Does not explain time range, pagination, or what the domain list contains.

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 description adds no parameter details. Seven parameters exist but none are explained, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from 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 clearly states it retrieves a list of citation domains for a prompt. It distinguishes from siblings like get_citation_domains (without prompt context) 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_citation_domains or get_prompt_citation_urls. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation 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, the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read operation ('get') but lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or output format. Minimal transparency.

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 for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It does not earn its place beyond stating the obvious.

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about return values, pagination, or filtering 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 meaning to any of the 7 parameters. It fails to explain required parameters like promptId, startAt, endAt, or optional ones like page, pageSize, platforms, regions.

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 is a tautology: 'Get citation URL list for a prompt' restates the tool title 'Get Prompt Citation URLs'. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_citation_urls or 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does.

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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It provides no information beyond the basic operation, which is assumed to be read-only but not confirmed.

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 concise with a single sentence, which is efficient but under-specified. It lacks necessary details, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but more informative description would be.

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, 3 required, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a query fanout list represents, how pagination works, or what the required parameters are for, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 zero description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of parameters. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., promptId, startAt), but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for less obvious parameters like regions or platforms.

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' and the resource 'query fanout list for a prompt', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_prompt_citation_domains. However, it does not elaborate on what a 'query fanout list' is, leaving some ambiguity.

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 vs. alternatives such as get_prompt_citation_domains or get_prompts. The description gives no context for selecting this tool.

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 must disclose behaviors. It fails to mention pagination, rate limits, or output format. The input schema implies pagination, but description omits this.

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 3 words, it is too brief; under-specification is not concise. It lacks front-loaded essential 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?

Given 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits pagination semantics, required parameters, and filtering 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 explanations. With 13 parameters, 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 'Get prompts list.' is vague; it states a resource and verb but lacks scope or distinction from siblings like batch_get_prompt_by_ids. No details on filtering or 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch_get_prompt_by_ids for specific prompts). Missing context on typical 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?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions credit consumption, which is helpful, but does not disclose response format, error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no metadata.

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 sentences: the first defines purpose concisely, the second adds an important cost detail. All sentences earn their place with no filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers basic purpose and cost but omits expected return structure, limitations, and error handling. It is adequate but not fully informative.

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 one parameter (domain) with no description and 0% coverage. The description only repeats 'by domain' without adding format, constraints, or examples. This adds no value 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 'Get DataHouse SEO traffic aggregate data by domain', specifying the verb and resource. It mentions included fields (traffic metrics, top keywords, whois fields), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_keyword_volume or get_brand_info, though the focus on traffic aggregate data provides some distinction.

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 traffic aggregate data is needed but offers no guidance on when to avoid this tool or alternatives. No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and 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 and a one-word description, the tool's behavioral traits (e.g., whether it reads data, requires authentication, or has performance implications) are completely undisclosed.

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 single sentence is short, it is severely underspecified for a tool with 8 parameters and no other documentation. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary detail.

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 (8 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide any contextual information 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 input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no information about the meaning, format, or constraints of parameters like page, endAt, or topics.

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' is a tautology that restates the tool's name and title without specifying what 'topics' refers to. It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like get_prompts or get_brand_info, leaving the agent unclear about the tool's domain.

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. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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