Multilo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the 'public' scope, output as 'clean Markdown', and a cost/quality benefit over HTML. It does not mention errors or return details, but the key behavioral traits are covered for a simple fetch 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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds input format and a practical comparison, both earning their 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 one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it does, accepted input formats, output format, and scope. It lacks explicit error handling notes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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's examples mirror the schema's explanation of 'path' and add no new semantic 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource ('Multilo page as clean Markdown'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on page content retrieval rather than listing or searching. The scope (public pages) and use cases are also stated.

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 appropriate use cases (documentation, pricing, comparisons, blog posts, homepage) and contrasts with fetching HTML, but it does not explicitly position the tool against siblings like search_docs or list_updates. It is clear when to use it but does not state when not to.

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 full burden. It adds behavioral context like 'newest first' and content scope ('shipped features, improvements and fixes'). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or error behavior, which is a moderate gap for a tool without annotation support.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what is listed, the ordering, and when to use it. The simple nature of the tool means no further detail is necessary.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the limit parameter is fully described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 tool lists the most recent Multilo changelog entries with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (get_page, search_docs) by focusing on updates/changelog rather than page retrieval or search.

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 when to use the tool ('Use when asked what is new, whether something has shipped, or how recently the product changed'). It does not mention when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for a simple list 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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return format (one-line summary, human URL, clean-Markdown URL) and implies a read-only search operation, but it does not mention edge cases like zero results or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and return information. It includes usage guidance without redundancy, so every sentence earns its place and there is zero waste.

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 and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke search and interpret results. It even mentions the clean-Markdown URL for fetching the full page, implying an integration with get_page. It does not cover error handling or pagination, but these are not critical for a simple search 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 already fully documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including an example for 'query' and constraints for 'limit.' The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond saying 'by keyword,' so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('Multilo product documentation'), and it clearly specifies what the tool returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning search as the first step before get_page or list_updates, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs to 'Use this first when asked how a Multilo feature works,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools imply that get_page is for fetching a specific page after search, so the guidance is useful though not fully comprehensive.

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