Family Fishin Website Discovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well for the safety dimension: 'strictly read-only and cannot edit content, access admin data, use carts, or place orders' explicitly bounds what the tool will and won't touch. It does not mention pagination, result-size limits, or rate constraints, leaving minor gaps.

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 core capability and scope, then immediately the constraint. No filler or redundancy; 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 3-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, both modes, and the read-only boundary. It does not describe the shape or volume of returned results beyond the no-query case, which is a minor omission given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 the schema already documents query, include, and limit_per_type. The description's note that omitting the query returns recently modified content largely restates the schema's own query description, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Search or browse the entire public Family Fishin website') and enumerates the covered content types (articles, WordPress pages, WooCommerce products). It distinguishes the tool as the broad site-wide option, but it never names the narrower siblings (search_articles, get_article, etc.), so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 clarifies both invocation modes ('Search or browse' vs. 'With no query, returns recently modified public content'), which gives useful context for the query parameter. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over the five sibling search/get tools, and no exclusions beyond the read-only note.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only public articles are reachable and that output is cleaned plain text with canonical metadata, but says nothing about behavior for missing/invalid IDs, rate limits, or draft/private handling.

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 waste, with the core action and identifier forms front-loaded before the return-value note.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (plain text plus metadata) and the public-access constraint. It is close to complete, missing only behavior on misses or unpublished content.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by numeric ID or slug' merely echoes the schema's own description rather than adding new syntax or format constraints.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Fetch one public Family Fishin WordPress article by numeric ID or slug.' The singular resource and 'public' qualifier distinguish it from search_articles and from get_product/get_site_page, though no sibling is named 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 implied (retrieve a single known article when you already have its ID or slug), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to search_articles for discovering IDs, nor a stated alternative for other content types.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does add that the tool is read-only and that it directs purchases elsewhere, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown ID/slug, authentication needs for non-public data, or latency/pagination concerns.

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, front-loaded with the fetch/keying semantics and followed by the read-only statement. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 compensates well by enumerating what is returned (description, prices, availability, images, attributes, variations, option-plugin fields). It falls just short of complete because it omits failure modes such as an unknown slug and whether unpublished products are excluded beyond the word 'public'.

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 is fully documented in the schema, including an example slug. The description only echoes 'by numeric ID or slug' without adding format or resolution rules, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (one public Family Fishin product), and keying method (numeric ID or slug), and enumerates the returned content so the agent knows what it gets. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_products, which implies a list-oriented query rather than a single-record fetch.

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 when to use it (looking up a single known product by ID or slug) and notes that purchases are directed to the product page, but it never explicitly contrasts this with search_products or states any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonable work: it declares the tool 'strictly read-only' and states it cannot access drafts or admin pages or edit content, which is the key safety boundary for a fetch tool. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core action (fetch a published page) is front-loaded ahead of the return-value and constraint details. Every sentence contributes new 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, what is returned ('cleaned plain text and canonical metadata'), and what is off-limits. Only error/edge behavior (e.g., what happens for an unpublished slug) is unaddressed.

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 id_or_slug is already documented in the schema; the description only adds the qualifier that the page must be published and public, which slightly constrains valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Fetch one published public WordPress page') and scopes it clearly to published, public content. It references discover_site as the discovery sibling, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from get_article or get_product, so an agent must infer the page/article/product split.

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 'discovered by discover_site' implies the tool belongs in a discover-then-fetch flow, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for fetching articles or products, so routing between the three sibling fetchers 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by naming the return fields and marking results as 'public' (implying no auth needed), but it says nothing about result ranking, search semantics, or what happens when nothing matches.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Given there is no output schema, the return-field enumeration earns its place rather than repeating structured data.

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 search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, listing the returned fields closes the main gap. Only the ranking/pagination behavior is unaddressed, which is minor for a tool capped at 10 results.

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' documented in the schema including an example and a max of 10. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search public Family Fishin WordPress articles') and enumerates the return fields. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_article or discover_site, so it stops 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?

No indication of when to use this versus get_article (single-item fetch) or discover_site. The word 'public' hints at scope but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: read-only, no cart or order side effects. It also enumerates the return payload. It omits auth requirements, pagination semantics beyond the limit param, and rate limits, which is why it isn't 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and capped by the read-only constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or repeated.

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 search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the critical read-only limitation, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and how matching works, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema with an example and a default/max. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or matching-behavior details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search the public Family Fishin product catalog') and scopes the domain to products, which separates it from search_articles/get_article. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or contrast with get_product, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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 (public catalog search) and an explicit exclusion: it cannot add items to a cart or place orders, which steers agents away from treating it as a transactional tool. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for single-product lookup or article search.

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