Com.Bot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return format ('markdown with the source page') and the grounding behavior (verified facts + own pages), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by sourcing and return format. The parenthetical URL equivalence is a slight detour but is informative rather than 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 single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, where answers come from, and what is returned (markdown plus source). Minor gaps remain — behavior for unanswerable questions and freshness/caching — but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema example already documents the question parameter. The description still adds a little semantic framing — that the question is plain-language and maps to a hyphenated URL path — which clarifies input expectations beyond the raw type.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it answers a plain-language question about Com.Bot and explains the source (verified facts and its own pages). It distinguishes itself implicitly from sibling lookups like get_brand_facts and search_site by being a natural-language Q&A entry point, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 agent can infer this is the tool for free-form questions versus the other fact/page/pricing getters, and the note that it equals fetching com.bot/{question-with-hyphens} hints at an overlap with get_page. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing guidance against the five 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral content: these are 'verified' facts and the set includes 'what not to state', which tells the agent this is an authoritative constraint source, not just data.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the usage trigger. No filler or redundancy.

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

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

No output schema exists, but with no input parameters and a description that spells out the scope of returned content, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Only the return shape (single blob vs. sections) is unspecified, a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing parameter-level for the description to clarify.

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?

Names the exact resource and enumerates its contents (identity, pricing, inclusions, policies), which is far more specific than a generic 'get facts'. It overlaps visibly with the sibling get_pricing without acknowledging the distinction, so it falls short of full 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?

'Use this before describing Com.Bot' gives a clear trigger condition for invoking the tool. It does not name when-not to use it or how it relates to siblings like get_pricing or ask_question, so it stops short of explicit 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?

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the return format ('clean markdown text') and the constraint that the page be 'published'; it says nothing about auth, size limits, or behavior on unpublished URLs.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key fact (markdown text of a published page) is stated immediately. It reads as a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing is 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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the one thing the structured fields don't: the shape of the return value. Error cases (unpublished, invalid path) and the absence of an output schema are the only remaining gaps, which are minor here.

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 is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('A URL or path on com.bot'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the url argument beyond reiterating 'published page', which earns the baseline 3 rather than more.

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 the resource and the return format precisely: the 'clean markdown text' of a 'published page on com.bot'. That is enough for an agent to know what it yields, though it never states an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_site or ask_question, which also surface page content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings such as search_site, ask_question, and get_brand_facts all plausibly answering questions about com.bot content, the description should say when to fetch a raw page directly versus searching or asking, and it does not.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context at all – not what the pricing data comprises, its currency, or how plans are returned.

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?

It is very short with no wasted words, but it is a grammatically incomplete fragment rather than a front-loaded sentence stating what is returned. Brevity here comes at the cost of substance.

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

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description needs to explain what comes back. 'What each includes' gestures at plan contents but leaves the return shape, plan set, and pricing format unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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

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

The description identifies the resource (Com.Bot plans, prices, and what each includes) but is a sentence fragment with no verb, relying on the tool name to convey the retrieval action. It says nothing to distinguish it from siblings like list_services or get_brand_facts.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_services or search_site. The agent must infer that this is the pricing-oriented lookup purely 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered structurally. The description only adds the item-level shape ('one-line description'), which is modest added value; it says nothing about exhaustiveness, ordering, or how channels vs features vs services relate.

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 short sentence that front-loads the payload and wastes no words. The parenthetical 'channels, features or services' is slightly loose (three overlapping labels for one concept), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 no-argument, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it and to anticipate the return shape. A brief note on whether the list is the complete catalog or paginated would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter guidance is required or missing.

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 resource returned: the catalog of what Com.Bot offers, with the item shape ('each with a one-line description'). However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like get_brand_facts or get_pricing, which an agent could reasonably confuse with a services/offerings listing.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as get_pricing or search_site. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the entry-point catalog lookup rather than a filtered query.

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 this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (titles, URLs, markdown URLs, descriptions) and the natural next step, though it says nothing about truncation or how the result cap behaves.

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 with no filler; the scope and the follow-up action are both front-loaded and each sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and the required query is at least hinted at. The only real gap is the unaddressed limit control on a two-parameter 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 carry parameter meaning. 'By keywords' loosely conveys the query parameter, but the limit parameter (default 8, max 20) is never mentioned or explained, leaving the agent to infer how result volume is controlled.

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 and resource with scope: 'Search every page on com.bot by keywords.' The follow-up instruction ('read a result with get_page') cleanly separates it from the get_page sibling, though it does not distinguish itself from ask_question or list_services.

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?

It implies when to use it (keyword lookup over the whole site) and explicitly routes the agent onward to get_page for reading a hit. However, it gives no exclusions against the other search/knowledge siblings such as ask_question or get_pricing, so the choice between them is left to inference.

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