ServerSearcher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at an output ('the on-site comparison URL') but never states that the tool is read-only, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens if a slug is unknown. For a zero-annotation tool this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 filler, pairing the operation with the identifying key immediately. It is slightly terse rather than padded, which is preferable, but the brevity is what costs it the full clause on 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what goes in and that a comparison URL comes out, which is roughly the minimum viable. With no annotations and no output schema, a bit more on result shape or failure modes would have been needed for a 4.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema as 'First/Second provider slug'. The description's 'by slug' phrasing adds no semantics beyond that, so the schema does the work and 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 ('compare') and resource ('two hosting providers') and names the identifying key ('by slug'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_provider_info, which could plausibly be used to look up providers as well, so it falls short of 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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over get_provider_info or search_servers, and no prerequisites (e.g. that both slugs must already exist). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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 burden. It does disclose the nature and rough contents of the response (profile, plan counts, locations, URLs), which signals a read-only lookup, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior for an unknown slug.

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 that packs the verb, the resource, the return contents, and the input source with no filler. Every clause earns its 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 read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the input source and sketches the returned fields. Only the choice against sibling tools is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the single slug parameter documented by example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the phrase 'ServerSearcher slug', a small amount of domain context beyond the schema.

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') plus the resource ('hosting provider profile') and even enumerates the payload (plan counts, locations, on-site URLs). It is clearly a lookup-by-slug tool distinct from compare_providers and search_servers, though it never names those siblings.

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 a retrieve-by-slug use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no routing to siblings like compare_providers or search_servers. An agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful trait beyond the schema — that results include on-site ServerSearcher URLs and affiliate checkout URLs — but says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, authentication, or rate limits, leaving notable gaps for a 21-parameter read 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource before the return-value note. Every clause earns its 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 large multi-filter search with fully documented schema fields and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resources searched and the shape of the return (plan URLs). It falls short only in not clarifying pagination behavior or how results relate to the provider-comparison siblings.

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 21 parameters with units, formats, and examples. The description only broadly gestures at the filter families (spec, location, price, capability) without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema; 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 (Search) and resource (dedicated, VPS, GPU and cloud server plans) and even enumerates the filter dimensions (specification, location, price, provider capability). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_providers or get_provider_info.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for finding server plans, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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