Fleek

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is the return content: price, MRP, saving, duration, per-month pricing, delivery method, and brand link, plus the 'shortest first' ordering. That is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though permission/auth or refresh behavior is unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the scope and result set; every clause carries information. Slightly long but 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and ordering, giving an agent enough to call and interpret the tool. Only minor gaps remain, such as currency/locale fallback behavior already partly covered by the country parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that brand and prices are country-store specific and currency-bound, adding no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (plans) scoped to one brand, and enumerates the compared dimensions so the agent knows exactly what 'compare' yields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_deals, get_fleek_app, and how_fleek_works.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one brand' — an agent can infer it is the tool for side-by-side plan comparison — but the description never says when to use this over find_deals, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds meaningful behaviour: data is read live from a public catalogue, results are capped at 8 brands in browse mode, and the payload includes price, list price, saving, duration, delivery type and a brand link. With no output schema, this carries the return-shape burden well.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the purpose before the two behavioural modes. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 3-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers source, scope, result cap and returned fields adequately. The only real omission is how it relates to the sibling compare_plans when an agent must choose between them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'brand' selects the per-plan vs per-brand return shape, and 'category' only applies in the without-brand branch. Country scoping by store and currency is reinforced beyond the schema's own note.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (Fleek prices for digital subscriptions) and a specific action (find/return deals), then splits behavior into the with-brand and without-brand cases. An agent can tell this is a catalogue lookup rather than a comparison tool. It stops short of naming a sibling like compare_plans to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Explicitly describes the two invocation modes: supplying a brand returns that brand's plans, omitting it returns up to 8 brands optionally narrowed by category. Country defaulting ('omitted means Fleek's global store, in USD') is also spelled out. No guidance on when to prefer this over compare_plans.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: App Store availability is country-dependent ('in the countries where it's listed') and the country argument changes which links are reported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences that front-load the resource and enumerate outputs, then qualify the country behavior. No filler, though the phrase 'With a country' is slightly awkward.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless-required, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (store/web links, country-conditional). Missing only explicit routing guidance versus siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the country behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (Fleek app download/web links) and enumerates the outputs (Google Play, App Store, web.getfleek.app). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compare_plans and find_deals, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The only usage hint is implicit: supplying a country narrows which store listings apply.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the result contains (facts with an associated platform and reference page, plus app store and web links), which matters because there is no output 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?

The definition is compact and front-loads the core content areas before the parameter note. The parenthetical list inside the first sentence makes it dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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 only one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (facts plus platform, reference page, and store/web links) and how to scope results. The one missing piece is explicit differentiation from the sibling get_fleek_app, which an agent would want before choosing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's enum and meaning are fully documented in the schema, including the 'omit for all four' behavior. The description restates the same four values with no additional syntax, defaults or edge-case guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource (facts about the Fleek app and website) and enumerates the four content areas it covers, so an agent knows exactly what kind of result to expect. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling get_fleek_app, leaving some ambiguity about which one to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: the topic enum plus 'Omit for all four' suggests this is a general knowledge lookup, and the enumerated subject areas hint at when it applies. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing to siblings such as get_fleek_app or find_deals.

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