IIS Rescue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it states that the tool returns a pointer only, explicitly denies booking behavior, and clarifies that no personal data is collected. This gives a clear safety/behavior profile.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that leads with the primary purpose and then adds a clarifying behavioral guardrail. Every word earns its place with no repetition.

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 informational tool, the description fully covers what it returns, what it does not do, and when it is useful. No output schema is present, but the description adequately conveys the return content (URL + process).

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 the schema is trivially covered, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. Baseline of 4 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 clearly states what the tool does: it provides the consultation URL and explains how the engagement process works. It also distinguishes itself from booking or data-collection tools by explicitly saying it 'never books anything or collects any personal data.'

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 'How to start an engagement with IIS Rescue' establishes the clear context for when an agent should call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions output contents (source URL, ESU cutoff) but does not describe return shape, multiplicity, pagination, side effects, or whether the tool is read-only. For a simple retrieval tool, the lack of explicit behavioral context is a notable gap.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core resource and adds the key extra details (source URL, ESU cutoff) without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It mentions output contents but does not explain the response format (list vs. object) or how the optional 'product' filter affects results. An agent may be unsure what to expect in the return payload.

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 parameter 'product' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (Microsoft end-of-support dates for Windows Server and SQL Server) and distinguishes it from siblings by content area. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', relying on the tool name to imply the action.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no references to sibling tools or conditions for selecting this over others. The only implied usage is the product name itself, which is not enough.

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 discloses that content is 'reproduced verbatim from the website,' which adds credibility but doesn't mention that it's a read-only operation, any pagination behavior, or potential response format. For a simple retrieval, this is acceptable but not 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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the content and source without any wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and provenance.

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 tool is simple, with both parameters documented in the schema. However, the description doesn't explain the output format or any edge cases, and with no annotations or usage guidance, an agent might miss when to use it. It's adequate but not fully complete.

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%, with both parameters (limit and query) fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb (get), a resource (published questions and answers), and a precise scope (legacy IIS, classic ASP and SQL Server website migration). It distinguishes from siblings like get_migration_paths or get_pathfinder_questions by the explicit content type and topic.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to infer based on the topic alone.

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 behavioral burden. It makes clear that this is an informational lookup by enumerating exactly what the content covers (each route's details and best-fit situation). It does not explicitly state 'returns' or confirm read-only behavior, but the content framing makes side effects unlikely.

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 tight, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core subject, the three named options, and the kind of information provided. There is no redundant wording or 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?

For a simple no-input, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the three routes and the dimensions covered. It could add an explicit 'returns' or mention the output format, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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 the schema documents that fully, so no parameter explanation is required. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; the description adds nothing beyond confirming the informational scope, which 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 names a specific resource — the three migration routes off a legacy IIS server (Rehost, Rebuild, Replace) — and states what information is included. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools by topic, though it lacks an explicit verb and relies on the tool name for the 'get' action.

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 the topic: an agent would use this when asked about IIS migration options. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over alternatives or exclude other tools, leaving the routing decision 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, but as a 'get' tool with no parameters, this is implicit. It doesn't mention response format, errors, or other behavioral traits, which is acceptable for such a simple operation but not thorough.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the tool's scope. The most important content (migration paths, promises, pricing, audience) is front-loaded and there is no filler. 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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It could mention that it provides a summary or overview, but the enumerated aspects make the purpose clear. The tool is simple enough that no additional context is strictly needed.

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 the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to describe. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics.

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 the tool retrieves the public offering of IIS Rescue, listing specific aspects (migration paths, promises, pricing, target audience). This is a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings like get_migration_paths and get_partner_channel by scope, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_* tools. The description only describes content, leaving the agent to infer that this is for an overview while others are for details. No explicit exclusions or conditions are given.

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 transparency burden. It discloses the output does not include price (fixed-price like direct) and describes what content stays with the partner (client, brand, out-of-scope items). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic 'get' operation, even though side effects and auth are not mentioned (low-risk for a read 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?

The description is longer than needed and contains marketing-heavy phrasing ('they would rather not own') that does not aid tool selection. The key facts (partner types, coverage, no price, usage scenarios) could be expressed in two tight sentences. It is still structured with purpose first, but the wordiness hurts.

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 tool has two optional enum parameters and no output schema. The description says what content is covered (arrangements, partner ownership, FAQ) but does not clarify what 'section' values return or the response format. An agent may not know the difference between 'summary' and 'all' sections, leaving ambiguity for complete understanding.

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 covers both parameters with 100% descriptions and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'MSPs and contractors' and 'FAQ for each audience' loosely maps to the audience and section parameters, but does not explain the enum values or how they affect the response. It adds marginal semantic value 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 clearly states the tool provides information about how IIS Rescue works with MSPs and independent IT contractors, covering arrangements, partner ownership, and FAQs. It distinguishes the partner-channel topic from sibling tools like get_faq by focusing on the cooperative model, though it never names a specific sibling.

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 final sentence explicitly lists use cases: white-label delivery, subcontracting, referring a legacy Windows Server migration, and whether IIS Rescue works with MSPs or contractors. This gives clear direction for when to invoke the tool, though alternative tools are not named and no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, though the 'get' prefix and content imply it. It does disclose the 'unknown' answer behavior, which is a useful detail, but lacks explicit safety or idempotency statements.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction is clear and actionable. 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 0-parameter, no-output-schema getter, the description fully explains what the tool returns (questions with allowed answers) and how to use it (ask the user, pass to run_pathfinder). The 'unknown' answer note adds completeness for edge cases. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers 100% with an empty object. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed; the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 the questions and allowed answers for the IIS Rescue two-minute assessment, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_migration_paths by focusing on the questions themselves and explicitly mentions run_pathfinder as the consumer of the answers.

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 instructs the agent to ask the questions to the user and then pass the answers to run_pathfinder, defining the exact usage flow. It also notes that 'unknown' is a valid answer to every question, which is a crucial guideline for handling user responses.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool is deterministic (identical answers give identical results), that it is an estimate and not a quote, and that it returns no price figure. It also enumerates the output components. This goes beyond a simple 'returns a recommendation' and gives the agent useful expectations. It does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, but the nature of a recommendation engine implies read-only behavior. The disclosures are strong.

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 moderately long but each sentence adds value: it states the purpose, the deterministic nature, the output scope, and the limitation about pricing. It is front-loaded with the core action and output. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and not redundant.

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 explain return values. It does: recommendation, confidence level, alternatives, price drivers, risks, and reasoning. It also clarifies the estimate nature and absence of price. For a tool with 7 parameters, the schema covers parameter meaning, and the description covers output and limitations. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention behavior for missing/unknown values (though no parameters are required).

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 each parameter (db, app, goal, mode, server, source, components) has a detailed description and enum with meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, when coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 the verb 'Recommend' and the resource 'migration path' for a legacy IIS website, and specifies the input (answers to assessment questions) and the output (recommendation, confidence, alternatives, etc.). It also notes it is the same deterministic engine as the website's two-minute assessment, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_migration_paths. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the input source (two-minute assessment questions) but does not explicitly state conditions for use, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_migration_paths or get_pathfinder_questions. There is no 'use this when' or 'use that instead' language.

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