byImprint Public Guidance

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds a mild behavioral nuance with 'canonical,' indicating the returned set is curated and authoritative rather than arbitrary, which aligns with the read-only annotation. No contradiction exists, but no additional behavioral detail (e.g., format, ordering) is disclosed.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence beginning with the imperative verb 'Return,' followed by a compact enumeration of URL categories. There is zero filler or repetition, and the length is proportionate to the tool's simplicity.

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 lookup tool, the definition is nearly complete: annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema exists to document return values, and the description states the tool's purpose. The only gap is that it does not reference the sibling byimprint-when-to-use to help the agent choose between them, though this is a minor omission for 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to document on inputs. Per the rubric, a 0-param tool earns a baseline of 4, and the description sensibly focuses on the output nature instead of inventing parameter details.

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 ('Return') and a clearly defined resource: 'canonical public service, evidence, legal, developer, and machine-readable URLs for byImprint.' It enumerates the URL categories, making the tool's scope concrete and distinguishable from the sibling byimprint-when-to-use, which presumably provides usage guidance rather than a URL index.

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 context is only implied: an agent can infer that this tool is for when canonical byImprint URLs are needed, but the description never states when to use it or when to prefer the sibling byimprint-when-to-use. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing, so the agent must reason from the purpose alone.

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 and idempotentHint, so the description's behavioral contribution is limited to labeling the output as 'current' and 'bounded' guidance. It does not describe the output format or maintenance behavior, but no side-effect disclosure is needed here.

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 filler. Every phrase ('current,' 'bounded,' 'owner-led business') contributes to the agent's understanding, making it appropriately concise without becoming 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. The purpose and scope are clear, and no additional setup, prerequisites, or side effects need to be disclosed.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for parameters to add.

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 verb ('Return') and a resource: current, bounded guidance for deciding when byImprint fits an owner-led business. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from a generic site index, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs to decide whether byImprint is appropriate for an owner-led business. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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