One Agent a Day

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload ('full prompt, steps, and config') and 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about authentication needs, error behavior when the slug is unknown, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb, scope, and returned content are all delivered efficiently.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and names the returned fields, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It lacks detail on failure cases and parameter format, keeping it just short of 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter name ('by slug'). It does not explain what a slug is, its expected format, or case-sensitivity, adding almost no meaning beyond the schema's property name.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one agent) with a clear scope (by slug), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_agents and search_agents tools. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of the top score.

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 'by slug' – you use this when you already know the agent's identifier – but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools that would be used instead for listing or searching.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first') and that only 'published' agents are returned, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether results are truncated — significant for a list endpoint 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. No wasted words, though it's arguably too terse given the uncovered parameters.

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 0% schema description coverage across two parameters, the description leaves the tag parameter and pagination behavior entirely unexplained. It's insufficient for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions a 'category' filter but never mentions the 'tag' parameter, which is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The category enum values are already in the schema, so the description adds little.

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 clear verb+resource (list agents) and adds the specific domain ('published One Agent a Day agents') plus ordering ('newest first'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the siblings get_agent and search_agents, so this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 mention of an optional category filter implies when to use this rather than search or get, but there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of the sibling alternatives. Usage is only inferable.

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 behavioral burden. It implies a read-style lookup over four fields but discloses nothing about match semantics (fuzzy vs exact), result caps, ordering, or return shape. The field list gives some scoping context but leaves the operation'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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the resource and searched fields are front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 an undescribed parameter, the description should say more about matching behavior and what results look like. It covers only the scope of fields searched, leaving the agent to guess at the rest.

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 0% for the single "query" parameter, so the schema adds no semantics. The description partially compensates by naming the fields the query is matched against, which is real added meaning, but says nothing about syntax, operators, or multi-term handling.

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 ("Search") and resource ("agent") plus the fields searched (titles, problems, tags, prompts). This implicitly distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings get_agent and list_agents, though it never names them.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to search versus using get_agent or list_agents, and no mention of prerequisites or result limits. The agent must infer the choice from the sibling names alone.

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