New Site Radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructiveHint and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the agent cannot get from annotations: the Pro API key requirement and both accepted auth header formats (Authorization: Bearer nsr_… / x-api-key). It doesn't state the return format, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content scope is front-loaded in one dense clause list, followed by a necessary auth sentence. Every element earns its place, though the parenthetical auth detail is cramped rather than cleanly structured.

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, no-output-schema informational tool, the description covers what the agent will learn and how to authenticate, which is everything needed to call it. Only the response format/shape is left implicit.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing about parameters needs explaining and the description correctly does not invent any.

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

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

The description names a specific resource and enumerates its contents (data sources, listing thresholds, cross-check bands, confidence and revenue grades, update cadence), which lets an agent distinguish this meta/documentation tool from the data-fetching siblings like get_site or search_sites without opening anything.

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

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

Usage is implied by the content list — an agent can infer it should call this to interpret thresholds or grades — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or condition that selects it over siblings. Adequate minimum viability, not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing the auth mechanism concretely (Bearer nsr_… or x-api-key, plus the endpoint URL), which is real operational context not present in annotations. It stops short of covering rate limits, error behavior, or partial-result cases.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the field inventory, then the auth requirement. The dense field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema to document return values. Slightly overstuffed as a single run-on sentence.

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

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

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the categories of data returned (traffic history, backlinks/DR, revenue grade, AI take, competitors). Auth and endpoint are supplied. Gaps are minor: no mention of response shape, pagination, or failure modes.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining 'Bare domain, e.g. example.ai' and enforcing a regex pattern. The description adds no additional meaning about the domain argument, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource (fetch everything on one tracked site) and enumerates the exact data domains returned, which makes it trivially distinguishable from list/search siblings like search_sites and top_rising. The scope phrase 'one tracked site' signals single-entity lookup.

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

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

Usage is implied: call it when you already have a domain and want the full profile rather than a list. The description states a prerequisite (Pro API key) but never explicitly says when to prefer this over search_sites or how it differs in cost/latency, so guidance stays at the implied level.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. Beyond those, the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: the required authentication (Bearer nsr_… or x-api-key: nsr_…) and the endpoint origin. It does not describe pagination or result shape, but with annotations covering the safety profile that gap is minor.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary return (category slugs with counts) before the secondary return and the auth caveat. Every clause carries information, though the auth-key formatting is slightly noisy inline.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must convey the return contents, and it does: category slugs plus site counts plus the enumerable filter values. Auth requirement is covered. Only pagination/size limits and result ordering are unaddressed.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly does not waste space restating parameter details it does not have.

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 resource (category slugs on the current board, with site counts) and adds a second concrete payload (valid values for search_sites filters). Naming search_sites explicitly distinguishes it from sibling search_sites, though the tool's scope is broader than the name 'list_categories' suggests.

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

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: by noting the filter values feed search_sites, an agent can infer this should be consulted before filtering. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: a Pro API key is required and the exact header forms ('Authorization: Bearer nsr_…' or 'x-api-key: nsr_…') plus a signup URL. It stops short of rate limits or error/return behavior, keeping it at a strong 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no padding: the capability and filters come first, then the auth requirement. Every clause adds information an agent needs to decide or successfully call the tool.

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, 3-parameter, fully schema-documented tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, filtering, and auth prerequisites. The only mild gap is that failure modes for an invalid/missing key are not described, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, since, and company are already documented with defaults, ranges, format patterns, and an enum. The description only restates the two optional filters and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Newest AI model releases from 26 labs') and the source types (official announcements, blogs, open-weights repos), which is far more informative than the title. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling site/radar 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?

It makes clear the tool returns model releases and that company and date filtering are optional, which is enough context for an agent to know when to call it. It does not name any alternative or exclusion, but no sibling overlaps with its function, so this is adequate rather than exemplary.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it requires a New Site Radar Pro key, specifies the accepted auth header forms (Bearer nsr_… / x-api-key) and links the docs URL. No return-shape or rate-limit detail, but strong value-add.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned data set, followed by filters and then the auth requirement — a sensible priority order. The dense parenthetical listing of providers and the auth-parenthetical are somewhat heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields and grades, and it covers auth plus filters. The only minor gap is pagination/limit interaction, which the limit param implies.

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 all three params are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates that category and provider are optional filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter 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+resource — 'Top N sites on the revenue-signals board' — and enumerates the actual returned fields (provider, price, revenue range, grade), which no sibling like top_rising or search_sites offers. An agent can distinguish this from the other list tools without opening the schema.

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

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

It notes that category and provider filters are optional, implying a filtered-listing use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against siblings such as top_rising or search_sites. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context: it requires a New Site Radar Pro API key with specific header formats and a documentation URL, which is important operational detail not captured by annotations. It does not describe rate limits or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense but well-structured sequence: purpose, search inputs, return fields, prerequisite pointer for categories, and authentication. Every clause carries information, though the auth URL and header formats make it slightly heavier than strictly necessary for selection.

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 7-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter surface, returned fields, prerequisite category lookup, and authentication requirements. It omits pagination behavior and whether results are sorted, which are minor for this complexity level.

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 every parameter including enums and defaults is already documented in the schema. The description summarizes the filter categories (category, site type, monthly-visits bucket, MoM bucket, payment detected) and the keyword fields but adds no syntax or nuance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 (Search) and resource (current monthly board of new AI tool sites), and spells out exactly what is searched (keyword on domain/name/description) and what filters exist. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_site (single site), top_rising, or model_releases because it is the only board-search tool.

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

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

It gives clear context for use, including the supported filter dimensions and an explicit pointer to list_categories for valid category slugs. It does not state exclusions (e.g., use get_site instead when you already know the domain), but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-open-world behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations lack: the required API key, accepted Authorization/x-api-key header formats, and the signup URL.

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 dense sentences: the ranking semantics and filter are front-loaded, and the auth/onboarding details follow. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys the return semantics (ranked rows by monthly-visit growth) and the auth prerequisite, which is the main thing an agent needs before calling. A brief note on row shape or response envelope would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% and both parameters are fully documented there (range, default, slug pattern). The description only restates that N is a limit and category is a single-value filter, adding no syntax beyond the schema — baseline 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?

Names a specific resource (this month's rising-sites board), states the ordering criterion (absolute monthly-visit growth), and scopes the optional filter. An agent can distinguish it from search_sites or model_releases without opening a schema.

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

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

The optional category filter is clearly explained and the schema points to list_categories for slug values, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_sites or other sibling boards, nor any stated exclusions.

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