explain_readiness_scoreExplain what an SYA structural readiness score means and the appropriate next step. This does not measure AI answer rankings, mentions, citations or traffic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | SYA structural readiness score from 0 to 100 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the tool explains and provides a next step, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, auth) are disclosed. The description adds some value beyond 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 two sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second clarifies scope. Every word adds value with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action.
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 explanatory tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It indicates the tool explains meaning and next step. However, it could be slightly more specific about the output format (e.g., returns a text explanation).
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%, with the parameter already well-documented as a number from 0 to 100. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool explains an SYA structural readiness score and its next step, with a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('readiness score'). It explicitly distinguishes itself by stating what it does not measure (AI answer rankings, mentions, etc.), setting it apart from potential 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?
The description provides clear negative guidance on what the tool does not do (measure AI answer rankings, mentions, citations, traffic), helping the agent avoid misuse. While it lacks explicit 'when to use' or alternatives, the sibling tools are distinctly different actions, making the usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: scanning, explaining scores, listing packages, getting links, and sample reports. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., scan_website, list_packages), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of website readiness assessment. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy or unnecessary complexity.
The tool surface covers the entire workflow: scanning, understanding scores, exploring packages and pricing, and viewing sample reports. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.