Get details about a specific website in the Silicon Friendly directory.
Args:
domain: The website domain (e.g. "stripe.com", "github.com")
Returns:
Website details including name, domain, level, description, verification info, and all 30 criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it is transparent about being a read operation that returns website details. It lists the exact fields returned (name, domain, level, verification info, all 30 criteria), giving the agent a clear expectation of the output without hiding any side effects or prerequisites.
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 with Args and Returns sections. It includes only essential information, no fluff, and is easy to parse. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), but the description provides sufficient context by listing the return fields. It mentions 'verification info' and 'all 30 criteria', giving the agent a complete picture of what to expect. No critical information 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the domain parameter, but the tool description fully compensates by explaining 'domain' with real examples ('stripe.com', 'github.com'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This makes the parameter's purpose and format clear.
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's action ('Get details') and resource ('specific website in the Silicon Friendly directory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or search websites. The specific focus on a single domain via 'domain' parameter makes its purpose unmistakable.
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 the correct use case: when you have a specific domain and need details about it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'search_websites', but the context of a specific website is clear, and no exclusions are needed.
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.