similarweb

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, or any side effects. The billing note is cost information, not behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely short but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to front-load purpose or provide any actionable information. It is more of a label than a description.

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 tool with a simple input and no output schema, the description still needs to explain what analytics are provided and what the user can expect. It gives no context about the output or use case, making it inadequate.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description adds no parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. The schema's parameter description is helpful, but the tool description contributes nothing.

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 'App Analytics / App Store Group: Mobile Apps' essentially restates the tool name without specifying a clear action or resource. It lacks a verb and does not differentiate from siblings like Google Play analytics. This is a tautology.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_v2_app_analytics_google_play or get_v2_app_store_app_details. There is no mention of use cases, 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only mentions billing cost. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains.

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 extremely short but under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It wastes space on billing and grouping information while omitting functional details, and has no useful structure.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what analytics are returned and any notable behaviors. It fails to provide any of this context, making it inadequate even for a simple single-parameter 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 schema provides a 100% documented description for the single parameter app_id, including an example and guidance on finding app IDs via the Autocomplete endpoint. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the high schema coverage establishes a baseline of 3.

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 'App Analytics / Google Play Group: Mobile Apps' simply restates the tool's title and category without any action verb or resource specification. It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like get_v2_app_analytics_app_store or get_v2_play_store_app_details.

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 on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. It does not mention the App Store counterpart or any other exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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, and the description only mentions billing cost ('1 Credits'). It does not disclose return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or confirm that this is a safe read operation beyond the implication in the name.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the category and billing information in one compact line. It is concise, though the 'App Store / App Details' group label is somewhat redundant with 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?

For a simple one-parameter get-details tool, the description is minimally usable alongside the schema. However, it omits usage context, return behavior, and safety cues that would help an agent fully understand the tool without annotations or an output schema.

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 describes app_id as 'App Store App ID' with an example, so schema coverage is complete. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 labels the tool as 'App Store / App Details' under Mobile Apps, which clearly communicates that it returns details for an Apple App Store app. It relies on the tool name for the 'get' verb and does not explicitly state the action, but it still distinguishes from Play Store siblings.

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 like get_v2_play_store_app_details or app analytics siblings. The 'Mobile Apps' group label gives only a category, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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 only mentions billing credits, not any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, what data it returns, or any limitations. This is completely insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 short but underspecified. It is not concise in a useful way; it omits essential functional details while providing only billing info and a category label.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect results, or how it differs from related tools.

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 40%, meaning mode, device, and trending are undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 says 'App Store / Top Apps Group: Mobile Apps' but lacks a verb or explicit statement of what the tool does (e.g., 'Fetches top apps from the Apple App Store'). It is vague and relies on the name/title for meaning, only adding that it relates to mobile apps.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_v2_play_store_top_apps or get_v3_top_apps. The description provides no context for selection.

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 available, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior such as read-only usage, return semantics, or request limitations. It adds only 'Billing per call: 1 Credits,' which does not illuminate behavior or side effects.

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 short but under-specified; the first sentence merely duplicates the title, and the billing line is the only piece of useful non-duplicative information. This is brevity without substance.

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 no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not say what company details are returned, how the domain is used, or what happens when no input is provided. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema fully documents the sole parameter company_domain as 'Website / domain name,' so the description need not add much. The description contributes no additional param semantics, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score.

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 restates the tool name/title as 'Company Details' and adds only a billing note. It does not provide a concrete verb or explain what company details are obtained, nor does it distinguish itself beyond saying 'Group: Companies.'

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 for when to use this tool versus sibling tools like website analytics or app detail tools. The description lacks any scenario-based direction or exclusions.

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions billing per call but does not describe return format, side effects, or any operational details, offering essentially no transparency.

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 extremely short but under-specified. It is a single sentence with no structure or meaningful content, lacking essential information. This is not effective conciseness but rather severe under-specification.

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 description fails to explain the tool's function, usage, or output. Even with the schema, there is no indication of what 'filter options' will be returned, making it inadequate for a tool with a single parameter that influences the result.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter 'type' with a description of allowed values and examples, giving 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 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 is essentially 'Filter Options Billing per call: 1 Credits.' It restates the tool title without providing a specific verb and resource, failing to indicate that it retrieves filter options for a given type. It lacks clarity on what the tool actually does, barely rising above a tautology.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 20 sibling tools. There is no context, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives, leaving the agent entirely uninformed about its use case.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for transparency. It mentions billing per call (1 credit), which is a form of cost transparency, but says nothing about side effects, return value, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving significant 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?

The description is extremely short, consisting of two fragments: 'Group: Mobile Apps' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits.' While concise, it lacks a clear subject-verb structure and omits essential functional details, making it under-specified.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description still fails to explain what the tool returns or its purpose beyond the name. It lacks context on typical use cases, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the tool'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?

The only parameter (app_id) is fully described in the schema with title, example, and description. The tool description adds no extra context beyond that, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 tool name clearly indicates it retrieves Play Store app details, and the description reinforces this with 'Play Store / App Details.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like top apps, but the description lacks an explicit verb, relying on the name for clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this instead of get_v2_play_store_top_apps). It only includes billing info, which does not help in tool selection.

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 burden of explaining side effects, rate limits, or read-only behavior. It only mentions billing (1 Credit per call) but does not clarify if the operation is safe or has any other behavioral implications.

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 very brief but also contains redundant and irrelevant phrasing ('Group: Mobile Apps'). It is not well-structured and provides minimal value beyond 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?

There is no mention of output format, return values, or edge cases. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 provides descriptions for country and category, but mode and trending lack descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, failing to compensate for the 50% schema coverage 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 repeats the title and adds 'Group: Mobile Apps' but does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves top apps from the Google Play Store. It relies on the tool name for clarity, which is insufficient for distinguishing from sibling tools like get_v2_app_store_top_apps.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, filters, or scenarios that would make this tool preferable to similar ones.

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 disclosure. It does add useful context such as the fact that 10K+ domains/keywords are monitored daily, the 30/90-day tracking periods, and desktop/mobile distinction. However, it fails to describe what the tool actually returns, the risk output format, or any implications of the call.

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 concise but includes a poorly-worded final sentence that mixes the earthquake metaphor with billing information, making it confusing. The core information about metrics and timeframes is front-loaded, which is good, but the clutter at the end and the awkward final sentence prevent a higher score.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only contract. It covers the domain (SERP volatility), the metrics tracked (30/90 days, desktop/mobile), and the general purpose. However, it leaves out what the output format looks like, how the risk level is presented, and any caveats about the data, leaving gaps for an agent trying to use this 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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the description has no parameter documentation burden to bear. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter surface.

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 measures SERP fluctuations and volatility for monitored domains and keywords, using the earthquake/seismometer metaphor effectively to convey its purpose. The inclusion of the 30/90-day tracking window and device breakdown (desktop/mobile) adds specificity to 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?

The usage is implied: you use this to check SERP volatility risk. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The billing information at the end is tangential and adds noise rather than clarifying when to use this tool.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing cost, not what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, what filtering or pagination behavior exists, or any side effects. This is inadequate for an unannotated 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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The phrase "Top Browsers Group: Browsers" is redundant, and the billing note is operational metadata rather than tool guidance.

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, no annotations, and only two optional parameters, the description still fails to explain what the response looks like, how results are ordered, or what the parameters do. The tool is simple, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify how 'country' or 'platform' affect results or what valid platform values might be.

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 is essentially a tautology: "Top Browsers Group: Browsers" restates the tool name and title without adding a verb or explaining what the tool does. It vaguely distinguishes the resource as browsers, but does not say it retrieves, lists, or ranks top browsers, and it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like get_v2_top_engines or get_v2_top_platforms.

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. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, prerequisites, or how this compares to related tools such as get_v2_top_websites or get_v2_website_analytics.

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 must disclose behavior, but it only mentions billing. The description does not state that this is a read-only ranking lookup, what the results represent, whether results are paginated, or what filters affect the output. This leaves important behavioral expectations completely unexplained.

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 text is short but mostly redundant: 'Top Search Engines Group: Search Engines' essentially repeats the title. 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' is a small operational detail, but the description lacks the structure expected to introduce purpose, usage, and output expectations.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only two vague parameter names, the description is not sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It leaves unclear how the top engines are ranked, how 'country' and 'platform' affect results, and what output shape to expect.

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 description does not need to heavily explain parameters. The schema gives a useful example for 'country', though 'platform' is minimally described as 'Platform'. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so this sits at the baseline score.

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 essentially restates the name/title: 'Top Search Engines Group: Search Engines.' It contains no clear verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not explicitly say it returns top search engines for a country/platform. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_v2_top_browsers or get_v2_top_websites.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as top_browsers, top_platforms, or top_websites. There is no mention of intended scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools. The only usage signal is the weakly implied category of 'Search Engines.'

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 behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the schema parameter. There are no annotations, and the description does not mention limitations, permissions, rate limits, or what the tool does with the input. It only states billing, which is not a behavioral characteristic.

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 extremely brief but not structured to convey essential information. It lacks sections or any coherent explanation of the tool's purpose, which makes it unhelpful despite its brevity. The header-like 'Top Platforms Group' is not a functional description.

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 absence of an output schema perspective (since it wasn't provided), the description gives no information about response format, data granularity, or typical use cases. With one optional parameter and no context, the tool is nearly unusable without external documentation.

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 only parameter 'country' has a description with examples, but it is unclear how it affects results and whether omitting it returns global data or all countries. No default behavior is specified, and there is no list of valid country codes beyond two examples.

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 'Top Platforms Group: Platforms. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' is vague and provides only a label rather than a clear action. It does not explain what 'top platforms' refers to (e.g., mobile platforms, web platforms) or what data is returned. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_v2_top_apps or get_v2_top_browsers.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, required context, or exclusions. The description only mentions billing, which is not about usage selection.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits.' and does not disclose output format, data scope, limitations, sorting, or any other runtime behavior.

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 short but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The phrase 'Top Websites / v2' is redundant with the title, and 'Group: Websites' gives no operational value. The only useful line is billing, which is metadata rather than functional guidance.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools with clear naming overlaps, the description is incomplete. It lacks any explanation of what top websites means, how filters combine, whether results are ranked, or what response will look like, making it far below the minimum viable context.

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 covers three of four parameters with meaningful descriptions (country, category, subcategory), and the trending parameter is missing only a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline schema coverage supports a 3.

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 is essentially a restatement of the title: 'Top Websites / v2'. It does not use a specific verb or explain what the tool does beyond the name, nor does it distinguish get_v2_top_websites from sibling tools like get_v3_top_websites or get_v2_top_engines.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool, how it differs from v3, which combinations of country/category/subcategory are valid, or when alternatives like get_v2_website_analytics would be more appropriate.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'detailed analytics, stats' without stating response format, data coverage, read-only nature, permissions, or any limitations, leaving the tool's behavior largely opaque.

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 very short (two sentences) and thus concise, but the structure is awkward: 'Group: Websites' is crammed into the first sentence without punctuation, and the billing sentence is disjointed. It could be clearer while remaining compact.

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 low parameter count, the description could be sufficient, but it lacks essential context for an agent to choose this tool among several similar website analytics siblings. No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the return value or scope of 'detailed', leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'domain' with 'Website / domain name', giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool 'Gets detailed website analytics, stats and more', clearly identifying the resource (website analytics) and the action (get). It is distinct from app-related siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from get_v3_website_analytics or get_v2_website_competitors, and the phrase 'and more' is vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_v3_website_analytics or get_v2_top_websites. The mention of 'Group: Websites' and billing info does not help an agent decide which tool is appropriate.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing per call, which is not about tool behavior. It gives no hint about side effects, return format, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation, leaving the agent completely blind.

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 extremely brief, almost tautological, and under-specified. While concise, it lacks meaningful content; the sentence 'Website Competitors Group: Websites.' is redundant with the title, and the billing note is useful but not sufficient structure. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Even though the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how it behaves. The agent is given no indication of the output structure or any additional context, making the description incomplete for effective tool selection and 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% because the only parameter 'domain' is documented in the schema as 'Website / domain name'. The description adds nothing beyond that, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance or clarify parameter usage.

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 'Website Competitors Group: Websites.' essentially restates the tool's title and name, providing no verb or action indicating what the tool does. It fails to specify that it retrieves competitors for a given domain, leaving the purpose vague and indistinguishable from sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios it fits, or how it differs from alternatives. The description offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over similar analytics tools.

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 and the description lacks any indication of side effects, idempotency, authentication, or error behavior. The only mention is 'Billing per call: 1 Credits,' which is vague and does not clarify the tool's actual behavior.

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 extremely short, but its brevity comes at the cost of information. It is concise in word count but fails to convey any meaningful detail, making it ineffective.

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 definition provides no information about return values, output schema, or example usage. The lack of annotations and output details combined with a sparse description leaves the tool largely undefined.

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 sole parameter 'query' is described as 'Search query', which gives some minimal semantic meaning, but it lacks details such as expected format, length, or examples. The description is too generic to be helpful.

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 only says 'Autocomplete' without specifying what is being autocompleted. The tool name and the 'query' parameter imply it might be for search suggestions, but this is not made explicit in the description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternatives. The description does not mention any use case, prerequisites, or scenarios where autocomplete is appropriate.

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 must disclose behavioral details, but it only mentions billing per call. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data source backs it, whether parameters are truly optional, or what the response format will be. The billing note is a small operational detail, but the behavioral burden is largely unmet.

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 short and front-loaded, but the first word merely repeats the title, and the only substantive content is the billing note. This is under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, data shape, expected behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_v3_website_analytics or get_v2_filter_options. An agent cannot reliably decide when to invoke it or what to expect from the response.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level details. The input schema already documents type, country, and platform, including references to the Filter Options endpoint; the description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides.

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 "Marketshare Billing per call: 1 Credits" mostly restates the title and adds a billing note; it does not state the tool's function with a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'. The tool name implies it returns market-share data, but the description itself does not explain what it does or how it differs from sibling metrics 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_v2_top_browsers, get_v2_top_engines, get_v2_top_platforms, or get_v2_filter_options. The description provides no use cases, prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose between marketshare and other market-data tools.

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 transparency burden. It discloses only the billing cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') and the 'Mobile Apps' grouping, but not the core behavior, return data, or operational constraints of the 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 short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. 'Top Apps Group: Mobile Apps.' does not earn its place because it adds no functional meaning, and there is no front-loaded purpose statement.

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 has 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It fails to explain what a top-apps result contains, how to interpret the modes/stores, or how this v3 tool relates to the sibling app-store/play-store tools.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline.

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 'Top Apps Group: Mobile Apps. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' does not state what the tool does; it merely restates the title and provides billing/grouping context. The tool name suggests 'get_v3_top_apps', but the description itself lacks a clear verb and resource scope, and it does not distinguish this from sibling top-apps 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_v2_app_store_top_apps or get_v2_play_store_top_apps. The description gives no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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 are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only contains a billing note ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') and no information about read-only semantics, error handling, rate limits, or output expectations. This is a significant transparency 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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. The only substantive content is a billing note; the rest is a redundant label. Brevity that omits necessary information does not earn high marks for conciseness.

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 there is no output schema and no description of return values, this tool leaves the agent with almost no context. For a data-retrieval endpoint, the lack of behavioral detail and expected response structure makes it highly incomplete even for simple read operations.

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% (all three parameters have detailed descriptions including usage instructions referencing the Filter Options endpoint). Per guidelines, high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3, even though the description itself adds no parameter-specific information.

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 'Top Websites Group: Websites' merely restates the tool's name and title without using an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists'. It provides no functional meaning beyond what the name already implies, making it essentially tautological.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its v2 sibling (get_v2_top_websites) or other analytics tools. There is no mention of scenarios, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Get website analytics, stats and more' — it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if there are any rate limits, if it requires authentication, or what the response structure might look like. There's no mention of what 'and more' includes, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's actual behavior.

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 brief but includes extraneous metadata like 'Group: Websites. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' which seems like system-generated context rather than necessary description. The title 'Website Analytics / Light & Fast' does add some efficiency signal but the main description's 'and more' is vague filler. It's short and front-loaded, but not every sentence earns its place given the wasted opportunity to clarify what makes this distinct.

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 has a simple signature (1 param, no output schema), the description is somewhat adequate, but it misses opportunities to clarify return value structure, time ranges for analytics, or differentiation from the v2 version also present in the sibling list. The presence of 'get_v2_website_analytics' as a sibling creates ambiguity about what v3 does differently, and the description doesn't resolve this. It's a minimum viable description but nothing more.

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%, meaning the single parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema. The description 'Website / domain name' with the example 'rapidapi.com' is clear. The description adds 'Get website analytics, stats and more' which implies the domain parameter is central, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. The description doesn't explain format requirements (e.g., with or without 'www', protocol-relative, etc.) but this is a reasonable baseline.

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 'Get website analytics, stats and more' which clearly indicates the resource (website analytics) and the verb (get). However, it lacks specificity about what kind of analytics/stats are returned and does not differentiate it from the sibling tool 'get_v2_website_analytics' other than by version number. The 'Group: Websites. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' seems like system metadata rather than purposeful clarification.

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 usage for retrieving website analytics but provides no context on when to choose this over the v2 version or other analytics tools. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_v2_website_analytics, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The presence of sibling tools with similar naming (get_v2_website_analytics, get_v3_top_websites) makes this lack of differentiation a notable gap.

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