Quick check if a website is in the Silicon Friendly directory and its agent-friendliness level.
Args:
domain: The website domain to check (e.g. "stripe.com", "github.com")
Returns:
Simple response with domain, in_directory, level (L0-L5), and whether it's verified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a 'quick check' and that it returns a simple response, clearly implying a read-only query. It describes the return fields (domain, in_directory, level, verified) without contradicting annotations. Minor omissions like auth requirements or edge cases, but for a simple check, the behavior is sufficiently disclosed.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary elaboration. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and quickly covers inputs and outputs.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the parameter, and the return fields (including the L0-L5 level range). This provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to use it, even without an output schema.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'domain' parameter with examples ('stripe.com', 'github.com'), clarifying that it is the website domain. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Domain' title. It does not specify normalization details, but the examples are sufficient for basic use.
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 a specific verb ('check') and resource (website in Silicon Friendly directory), and names the key output (agent-friendliness level). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a 'quick check' for directory membership and level, which sets it apart from tools like get_website or verify_website.
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 implied usage is to check a domain's directory status and friendliness level, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Since there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools, the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources (levels, queue, websites, verification) and actions. check_agent_friendliness and get_website both retrieve info about a specific site, but the former is a quick status check while the latter provides full criteria details, so they are distinguishable. No other overlapping tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, submit, verify, check). The verbs clearly indicate the action, and nouns indicate the target. No mixed conventions or stylistic inconsistencies.
8 tools is well-scoped for a directory service with submission, verification, search, and listing capabilities. Each tool serves a distinct function without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range.
The tool set covers the core workflows: submit, verify, search, list, and check status. However, there are no update or delete operations for websites, which is a notable gap for managing directory entries. The absence of these operations could limit maintenance workflows.