FindMeTool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are 'featured' pages and include canonical URLs, which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, result limits, pagination, or whether the list is a fixed curated set — gaps for a browse-style tool.

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 purpose front-loaded and the sibling routing rule second. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at what comes back — 'canonical URLs' does that. Combined with the routing guidance and the trivial zero-param schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the pagination/ordering behavior is left unstated.

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 are no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description does not waste space inventing imaginary inputs.

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 ('List featured FindMeTool pages') and even mentions the payload content ('canonical URLs'), so the agent knows what this returns. It is clearly not a lookup tool, though it relies on the sibling name rather than describing the resource scope in depth.

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 an explicit routing rule: 'Use lookup_tool when the task is specific,' which inversely signals this tool is for general/browsing cases. There is no explicit exclusion or condition beyond that one clause, but the alternative is named.

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 disclose two useful traits: the return is a browser URL rather than data, and 'Input stays in the visitor's browser' signals a privacy-preserving, non-server-side lookup. It says nothing about caching, rate limits, or whether results are guaranteed to exist.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the output, then the privacy note. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the return value (a tools URL), which is what the agent most needs to know. For a one-parameter lookup tool this is nearly complete; it only lacks guidance on the sibling's role.

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 'query' param is already described with concrete examples. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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+resource ('Find the FindMeTool page for a task') and clarifies the output ('Returns a specific https://findmetool.com/tools/{slug}/ URL'). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_featured_tools, 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?

Usage is implied by 'for a task' and the example queries in the schema, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against list_featured_tools. The agent must infer that this is the search path versus the featured-list path.

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