Flowie

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing the return format ('clean Markdown') and a cost signal ('cheaply'), which are things the annotations cannot convey. It omits failure behavior (invalid path, redirects), keeping it below 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 outcome first, then input formats, then the usage router. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

A single-parameter, read-only fetch with no output schema, and the description still covers return format, accepted input forms, and the workflow position. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% and the schema already gives both example formats ('/pricing' and a full https URL). The description's path examples ('/platform/ai-agents', '/e-invoicing/france') and its restatement that full URLs are accepted largely duplicate the schema. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, 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 and resource ('Return the clean Markdown of a single get-flowie.com page') with explicit scope ('single page'). It also separates itself from the sibling search tool by naming search_flowie as the upstream step, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a 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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Use after search_flowie to read a page's full content cheaply.' That names the alternative tool and the sequencing condition. It stops short of a true when-not clause (e.g. when to prefer get_flowie_overview instead), so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is 'canonical' and 'citable' and grounded in the company/product, which signals authoritative, citation-ready content rather than arbitrary retrieved text — a meaningful trait beyond the annotations. It does not address freshness or update cadence.

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, zero padding: the first front-loads what the response contains, the second front-loads the trigger condition. No restatement of the title and no filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the five content areas of the summary. An agent knows exactly what it will get and when to ask for it, so nothing material is missing for a zero-arg, read-only 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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing to document. The description's 'Takes no arguments' correctly reinforces the empty schema, though it adds no detail beyond it.

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 ('Return a canonical, citable summary') and a specific resource ('what Flowie is'), then enumerates the payload (positioning, capabilities, compliance, pricing, entry-point URLs). That enumeration distinguishes it clearly from fetch_flowie_page and search_flowie, which retrieve or query content rather than deliver a fixed product profile.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when asked what is Flowie or for a grounded company/product overview.' That is clear context for selecting it, but it never names the alternatives or states the inverse (e.g., use search_flowie for specific questions about a feature), so the routing guidance stops short of full when-not coverage.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context annotations cannot: the exact return fields (title, URL, snippet) and the scope limit that only public content is searched, 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 sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value facts (what is searched, what comes back, use-it-first) are front-loaded.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the searched corpus, the return fields, and the usage position, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only shortfall is the lack of an explicit hand-off statement to fetch_flowie_page once a URL is found.

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%: query, limit, and locale are each documented in the schema, including examples ('France e-invoicing mandate', 'SAP integration'). The description adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, 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 (search) and resource (public get-flowie.com content), enumerates the content areas covered (platform, solutions, e-invoicing, integrations, pricing, blog, glossary), and names the return shape. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from fetch_flowie_page 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?

'Use this first to find which pages answer a question' clearly positions the tool as the entry point before fetch_flowie_page, and the listed domains ('product, compliance coverage, integrations, or pricing') scope when it applies. It does not explicitly name the alternative or the condition that selects it, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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