byImprint Public Guidance

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description only needs to add content-level context. It does clarify the returned artifact is a canonical set of URLs across several categories, which is useful, but it adds no further behavioral detail such as response structure or ordering.

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, front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no filler or repetition. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only index tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It enumerates the URL categories covered. The only minor gap is not explicitly routing the agent to byimprint-when-to-use for usage guidance, but this is not essential for invoking 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because nothing is 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource: canonical public service, evidence, legal, developer, and machine-readable URLs for byImprint. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling byimprint-when-to-use, which is about usage decisions rather than URL retrieval.

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 its use: call it to get a canonical URL index for byImprint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over byimprint-when-to-use or mention any exclusion criteria, leaving the routing partially to inference.

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 annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'current' and 'bounded' but does not clarify what those mean behaviorally, such as response size or freshness. It does not contradict the annotations, but provides minimal additional 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, concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the main verb 'Return' and avoids any unnecessary elaboration. There is no redundancy or confusion in structure.

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?

The description covers the core purpose but lacks details on output format or any prerequisites. Since the output schema is declared, it may not need to explain return values, but the notion of 'bounded' guidance is unclear. The absence of usage context relative to the sibling tool also leaves some contextual gaps.

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 is empty with no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to convey. The description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist. This meets the baseline expectation for an empty parameter set.

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 that the tool returns guidance for deciding when byImprint fits an owner-led business. It specifies a verb 'Return' and a specific context, making the purpose distinct. However, the phrase 'bounded guidance' is somewhat vague, preventing a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to its sibling 'byimprint-site-index'. It neither mentions alternative tools nor describes conditions for selecting this one. Thus, an agent would have no basis to choose this over a sibling based on the description.

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