ElfHosted

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description usefully adds what each comparison entry contains, including live pricing and a store link. It does not cover failure behavior for unresolvable names or the response shape beyond the listed fields, so it stops short of a 5.

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, zero filler, with the comparison scope and the returned fields front-loaded before the input instruction. Nothing is redundant or misplaced.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential scope, field list, and input format. The only gap is what happens when a supplied name or id matches nothing, which an agent might want to know before calling.

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 'products' parameter is fully documented, so the schema carries the load. The description's '2 to 5' and 'ids or names' restate the minItems/maxItems and item description rather than adding new meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Compare ... ElfHosted apps or bundles side by side') and even enumerates the returned fields (name, description, live price, store link). It implies differentiation from browse_apps by emphasizing comparison, but never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top 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?

Usage is only implied: the '2 to 5' framing and 'give store product ids or names' suggest when the tool fits, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing versus browse_apps, search_docs, or save_me_money. An agent must infer the selection criteria.

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=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only that content comes from the docs and includes a link, but says nothing about return shape, whether all four client guides are returned at once, or whether the link is always present.

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 a single sentence of reasonable length, but the front-loading is weak — it opens with a long noun clause ('How an ElfHosted customer connects their agent...') that describes a topic rather than the tool, and the operative clause lands at the very end.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description needs to explain what comes back; it partially does ('Read from the docs, with the link'). However, it leaves open whether the answer is a doc excerpt, a static guide, or a URL, which matters for an agent deciding between this and search_docs.

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, which is the baseline 4 case. The description is consistent with that: it implies a fixed, no-argument documentation lookup rather than a parameterized search, so 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 identifies the subject (connecting an agent to a private MCP server, with per-client steps for claude.ai, ChatGPT, Claude Code, Cursor) but never names the action the tool performs. Only the trailing phrase 'Read from the docs, with the link' hints that it retrieves documentation, and even that is phrased as an instruction rather than a statement of what the tool does.

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 guidance and no differentiation from the doc-oriented siblings get_doc, search_docs, or find_my_setup. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this should be preferred over search_docs for connection questions, or whether the per-client steps are returned together or selected somehow.

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 mark it as a read-only, non-open-world operation, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: content is returned as markdown and long pages are truncated. It does not explain truncation limits or pagination, but the key behavioral caveat 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 description is three compact sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by accepted input forms and the truncation caveat.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers source, format, accepted inputs, and truncation. It could be slightly stronger by explaining what happens when a page is cut short, but no critical invocation detail 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%, so the path parameter is already well documented. The description adds minor clarity by mentioning docs.elfhosted.com links and the relationship to search_docs results, but it does not add substantial 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: read one page of the public ElfHosted docs as markdown. It also distinguishes the tool from search_docs by explaining that search_docs returns paths that get_doc can consume.

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 gives clear usage context: provide a page path like "app/plex" or "trial", or a docs.elfhosted.com link as returned by search_docs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus siblings such as browse_apps, but the intended use is clear.

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=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is read from the trial page of the docs 'with its link', which gives a useful hint about the return payload. With no output schema, it could say more about the shape of the response (single page vs. summary), so it lands at adequate rather than rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of covered topics — every clause earns its place by telling the agent what questions the page answers. Minor redundancy between the name and the opening phrase, but nothing wasteful.

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 docs lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough: the source page, the topics covered, and the presence of a link in the result. The only missing piece is how it relates to the generic docs 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the absence of a 'no arguments needed' note is a trivial gap.

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 exact resource (ElfHosted's $1 7-day trial doc page) and enumerates the sub-topics it answers: what you get, excluded products, day 8, and cancellation. That is far more specific than the name alone. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces (get_doc / search_docs) for trial questions, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 by the topic list — an agent can infer 'use this for trial questions.' There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing guidance against get_doc or search_docs, which are the obvious overlapping 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing the data source (the status page) and the output shape (which services are down), which the annotations do not 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 tightly written sentence with the subject and time constraint front-loaded and no filler. Every clause 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, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description covers source, scope, and the key return content. Minor gaps remain around what 'up' means (partial degradation vs. full outage) and the overall-vs-per-service granularity.

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. Nothing in the description contradicts or complicates that.

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 (ElfHosted's public services) and what it reports (whether they are up right now, naming those down), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. No sibling overlaps this purpose, but the description doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from 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?

The phrase 'right now' implicitly signals this is for current status checks rather than historical or per-service lookups, which is a useful constraint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for related questions.

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=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closure are covered. The description adds that prices are "live" (a data-freshness cue) and that discounts stack, but says nothing about where the prices come from, whether they can be stale, or how the worked example is chosen. Modest added value on top of annotations that already carry the main behavioral signals.

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, front-loaded with the discount mechanisms and then the input/behavior split; nothing is padding. The opening is a noun phrase rather than a verb, so the agent must read to the second clause to learn what the tool actually returns.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and sketches the return contents (monthly price, cost per term, worked example). Only minor gaps remain, such as currency or whether prices include tax, which are unlikely to affect tool selection.

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 already documents "app or bundle name, search words, or a store product id". The description's only real addition is the meaning of the omitted case (general savings explanation with an example), which is useful but thin against a fully documented parameter.

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 concrete offering (prepay 3/6/12 months, ElfBuckz bought with Bitcoin, discount stacking) and the concrete output (live monthly price plus cost per term), so an agent knows this is a savings/pricing lookup rather than a generic store call. It never names a sibling such as compare_apps or browse_apps, so differentiation is inferred from subject matter rather than stated.

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 explicitly branches on the input: pass a product to get live prices, omit it to get a worked savings example, which is real when-to-do-what guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer compare_apps or browse_apps instead, so there is no exclusion or alternative routing.

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=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and corpus scope are covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (title, link, short snippet) and that results are relevance-ranked ('best matching'), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 with zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the return summary and the sibling contrast. Every 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?

For a two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and the sibling alternative. Minor gaps remain around result ordering/pagination and whether limit truncates ranked matches, but nothing blocks 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%, so both parameters are already documented; the description adds only the notion of ranked matching and nothing about limit or query syntax. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ElfHosted's public documentation') and scopes it to a corpus, then distinguishes it from the sibling get_doc ('reads a whole page'). An agent can select between the two without opening either schema.

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 clearly: search here for matching pages/sections, use get_doc when a whole page is needed. The alternative is named with its distinguishing condition, though there are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses that recommendations are rules-based, capped at five, exclude existing apps, and include a rationale and live store link. It does not explain the pairing criteria or what happens when the optional app list is omitted.

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-loaded with the audience and use case, followed by concrete output constraints and the rules-based implementation detail. Every phrase contributes useful selection or invocation information.

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 one-parameter recommender, it covers the audience, input relationship, result count, exclusions, and per-result content, which is especially helpful without an output schema. The main gap is that my_apps is optional, yet the description only explains behavior when apps are listed.

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 schema already fully documents my_apps as the apps the user currently runs. The description reinforces that these apps drive pairing and are excluded from results, but adds no further input syntax or omitted-input behavior 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?

The description gives a specific action and resource: suggesting up to five complementary ElfHosted apps based on the user's current stack. The focus on expanding an existing setup, excluding apps already run, and providing rationales and store links distinguishes it from general browsing or comparison tools.

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 opening phrase, "For someone happy with their stack who wants more," clearly establishes the intended use case. It does not explicitly name when not to use the tool or route agents to siblings such as browse_apps for general catalog exploration.

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