Anthony Hunt · SHAART Agency docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: only public pages are retrievable, implying private or auth-protected pages will not work. It does not disclose failure behavior for nonexistent paths or whether the response includes frontmatter, which for a fetch tool would be relevant context. Given strong annotations, 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose and output format, the second provides illustrative path examples. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place. This is exemplary 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 simple single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, output format (Markdown), scope (public), and path format via examples. The only gaps are minor — error handling for nonexistent pages and details about response content beyond Markdown — neither of which is critical for correct invocation of such a simple 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 coverage is 100% and the schema describes path as 'Site path starting with /' with a pattern constraint. The description adds genuine value by giving concrete examples: '/about, /pricing, /servicios/<slug> or /blog/<slug>'. These examples reveal the actual route structure and slug format, going beyond the schema's generic description. This pushes the baseline from 3 to 4.

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: 'Return any public page of the site as Markdown.' It specifies the output format (Markdown) and scope (public pages), making the tool's function unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling search_docs, but the retrieval-by-path operation is clearly distinct from a search operation.

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 context — you use this to fetch a specific public page by path — and the 'public' qualifier sets a boundary on what it can retrieve. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use the alternative search_docs, nor any exclusions beyond the implicit 'public only' constraint. For a single-parameter read tool the implied usage is adequate, so 3 is fair.

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 establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds useful return-shape information ('URL, title, description and schema.org object') and 'best matches' ranking. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or language matching behavior, but for a read-only search tool the annotation coverage keeps this adequate.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return information is stated efficiently.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool, the description plus schema and annotations is nearly sufficient. It names the searchable content and return fields; the only minor gap is not mentioning the get_page sibling or clarifying result ordering/pagination, but these are not essential 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 100%, with both query and limit already documented including defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search services, pricing, key pages and blog posts', and describes the return content ('URL, title, description and schema.org object'). It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool get_page, so it falls short of a 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?

The description implies usage context by enumerating what can be searched, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with get_page. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative routing hints, so usage guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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