marketinque — launch plan & backlink index

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is already present)Skip the description reinforces it with "Read-only." More importantly, it adds context beyond the annotation: account_required behavior (page redirected to sign-in when probed), founder_fills being a form an agent cannot drive, and the presence of a last-session note. These field-level behaviors meaningfully shape how the agent should interpret results.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but the field list is a long, dense run-on sentence with multiple parentheticals and em-dash asides. While each detail adds value, readability suffers. The closing two short sentences provide good structure, but the middle could be better organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-record getter with one parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It enumerates all returned fields Bonus includes field-level quirks (sign-in redirect, non-drivable form) and a specific instruction to read the note before opening the page. No critical behavior seems 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 input schema already documents the only parameter (slug) with an example ("saashub") and 100% coverage. The description adds no additional slug semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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: "One directory from the index" — this is clearly a single-record retrieval tool. The long field list (domain rating, dofollow, price, etc.) further differentiates it from siblings like list_directories or get_submission_kit. An agent can unambiguously identify what this tool returns.

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 the usage context: when you need one directory's record with detailed fields, use this tool. It also gives an explicit, actionable workflow instruction: "Read the note before opening the page." It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear 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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: it explains the conditional behavior based on `node`, the distinction between anonymous callers and project callers (free tier vs project's own data), and that certain parameters are ignored for projects. This is useful transparency about how the tool behaves in different contexts.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose. The second sentence explains the conditional behavior. The third sentence covers the auth/context distinction. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema details. The structure is logical: what, when, and how it behaves.

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 moderate complexity (conditional behavior, free-tier vs project distinction) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: what the outline contains, what a node returns, and how parameters are scoped. It doesn't explicitly describe the output format (e.g., JSON structure), but the description's mention of 'phases and objectives with step counts' and 'every step under it, with status and whether it is unlocked' gives a reasonable picture. The sibling tools (get_step, get_directory) suggest this is part of a family, and the description is sufficient to select this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of `node` (phase/objective slug) and how `done`, `not_applicable`, and `traits` are used in the free tier vs ignored for projects. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, which don't mention the free-tier/project distinction. The description doesn't repeat the enum values, which is appropriate since the schema covers them.

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's function: retrieving the launch plan, with a distinct behavior depending on whether a `node` parameter is provided. It distinguishes between the outline view (without `node`) and the detailed step view (with `node`), and it names the specific fields returned (status, unlocked). This is a specific verb+resource description that differentiates it from siblings like get_step and get_directory.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to get the launch plan outline or a specific node's steps. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by describing the two modes. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., get_step for a single step, get_directory for directories). The guidance is clear for the tool itself but lacks explicit 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 include readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'Read-only; no side effects,' which is redundant but consistent. It adds a small behavioral note that the slug must come from next_steps or get_plan, which is an input provenance constraint. No additional behaviors like auth, rate limits, or error cases are disclosed, so with annotations present the bar is lower but the description offers modest extra context.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose ('One plan step in full') and enumerates the returned fields. Every sentence contributes: the field enumeration, the usage instruction, and the read-only note. It could be slightly more concise, but it's appropriate for a complex return value.

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 what is returned – and it does, listing all major components (title, detail, URL, play, prerequisites, verification, minutes/cost, founder_steps). It also provides usage context. It doesn't mention error handling or return format, but for a read-only retrieval tool with high schema coverage, it's sufficiently 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 has 100% coverage describing all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent the slug should come from next_steps or get_plan, which is beyond the schema's general description. It doesn't mention the free-tier behavior of done/traits/not_applicable, but the schema covers that.

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 ('get') and resource ('step'), and explains it returns the full step details. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing next_steps and get_plan as the source of the slug, making it clear this tool is for retrieving a single step's details, not for listing steps or plans.

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 tells the agent to read this before working a step returned by next_steps or get_plan, and that the slug comes from those. This gives a clear when-to-use trigger. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the behavior is well implied.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already marks the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the output differs by caller identity and includes both product/brand data and the state of five kit steps. Nothing contradicts the annotation.

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 compact and the second sentence carries precise functional information. The opening phrase is slightly vague but not wasteful, and the overall length is appropriate.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description names what is returned and notes the conditional behavior for projects versus anonymous callers. It leaves the exact meaning of 'five kit steps' undefined, but that is a minor gap for 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The only relevant invocation distinction is caller type, which the description already mentions.

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 uses 'returns' with concrete resources (product profile, brand dossier, state of five kit steps), so an agent can infer this is a read tool for submission-kit data. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_directory or get_step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives context by distinguishing project callers from anonymous callers, which implies when each behavior applies. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_step, get_directory, or next_steps, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior: it places the founder on a waitlist, is free for now, sends one email without spam, and allows unsubscribe. It also discloses the 'confirmed' flag as a required attestation. It is transparent about being a non-destructive, consent-based action even though no annotations are provided.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It lists the items and the condition. The only slight issue is the parenthetical enumeration which, while informative, adds a bit of length. However, it remains efficient and every sentence contributes to clarifying usage.

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 3 parameters, all documented, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to call, and the consent requirement. It does not specify the return value, but since there is no output schema and the action is a simple side effect, it is sufficiently complete. Minor gaps: it doesn't mention what happens if the email is invalid, but that is likely handled elsewhere.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description references the email and confirmed parameters but adds little beyond the schema. It mentions the 'product_url' indirectly ('product'), but the schema already covers it. Thus, the description adds marginal value, but since schema coverage is full, a 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 clearly states the action ('Put the founder on the waitlist'), the target (marketinque project), and lists the specific items involved. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the waitlist and email confirmation, which is unique among the sibling tools that are mostly 'get' operations.

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 explicitly states the precondition: 'Call ONLY after the founder gave you their email and said yes in this session.' It also implies not to use it otherwise and mentions the confirmation flag 'confirmed' as an attestation, which provides clear guidance on when and how to use the 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?

With readOnlyHint already declaring the operation safe, the description adds useful behavioral detail: the output is delivered one phase at a time in a defined order, and each row contains the submission page plus, for a project, any already-recorded listing. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 front-loaded sentences carry purpose, default behavior, scope, and row contents without redundancy. Every clause adds information, and the most important identity of the tool comes first.

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 read-only list tool with a complete input schema, the description supplies a partial return-value picture (submission page and recorded listing per row), which is important because there is no output schema. It does not describe paging across offset or max results, but those are already documented in parameters, leaving only minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning: it restates the default phase and clarifies row contents, but limit, offset, min_dr, category, and unrecorded_only are left to the schema's already-complete descriptions.

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: directories ("Places that give a startup a backlink") and says the tool returns them "one phase at a time in the order that works." The title and name make the list semantics obvious, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_directory or other siblings in the description itself.

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 context is implied rather than stated: it is the tool for seeing the backlink directories per phase, and "Default phase bl-sprint" gives the common entry point. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling statement, so the agent must infer the conditions from the phase and filter parameters.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that `done`/`not_applicable`/`traits` are ignored for projects, and that the sprint is packed into `minutes`. However, it doesn't disclose what 'sprint' means behaviorally or what the return shape looks like, which is a gap given no output schema.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds the free-tier/project distinction efficiently. It's compact and every clause earns its place, though the backtick-heavy style is slightly dense.

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 read-only tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage context (free tier vs project) but doesn't explain what the returned 'sprint' looks like or how 'tree order' is determined. An agent could call it correctly but might not know what to expect back. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, but the return format is undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds the key semantic distinction that `done`, `traits`, and `not_applicable` are free-tier only and ignored for projects, which is valuable. But it doesn't add much beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns the next unlocked, unstarted steps in tree order plus a sprint packed into `minutes`. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_plan and get_step, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The mention of 'tree order' and 'sprint' adds useful specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: it explains the free-tier vs project distinction and which parameters apply to anonymous callers. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of get_plan when you need next steps', but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when to use it. The 'Anonymous callers pass...' phrasing is a clear usage condition.

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 only provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the distinction between anonymous read-only mode and project mode, and by indicating that the response reveals what that mode unlocks. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core function and defines key terminology. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, read-only introspection tool, the description fully explains what the agent will learn: the connection mode and what it unlocks. No output schema is required for such a simple operation, and nothing else is needed to invoke 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, so the schema is trivially complete. The zero-parameter baseline is 4, and the description wisely avoids adding irrelevant parameter discussion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific function: report which mode the connection is in, either anonymous read-only or project, and what that mode unlocks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_directory or join_waitlist, which operate on resources rather than the caller's identity.

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 use when an agent needs to understand the current connection's mode and permissions before proceeding. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and no sibling tool appears to cover this function.

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