toolfound

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it performs no network visit to the destination, and it returns evidence-bounded output plus a canonical tool URL. It does not, however, explain what normalization actually does to parameter names or values.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the two behaviors stated before the return-behavior note. No filler and nothing that could be cut 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?

The rich annotations and an existing output schema carry much of the burden, and the description covers the no-fetch behavior and return shape at a high level. The gap is the semantics of the required mode parameter, specifically what 'normalize' changes, which leaves an agent guessing about the primary behavior.

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 enumerates example utm_* parameters for url and its verb pair maps onto the mode enum (normalize/remove), which is real added meaning. Still missing: the url maxLength constraint and any definition of the normalization rules or how unknown/non-standard params are treated.

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 names specific verbs and resource: normalize UTM naming or remove standard utm_* parameters from a URL. That is well beyond a restatement of the title, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as toolfound_campaign_links or toolfound_inspect_public_link, which plausibly also touch campaign URLs.

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 two operating modes (normalize vs remove) imply when each behavior applies, and the no-fetch clause hints at a use case distinct from link inspection. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative to route to.

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 burden and does so: it repeatedly declares the operation changes nothing, and it enumerates exactly what the checker reports per method (meta tag presence, DNS TXT presence, magic-link eligibility), with the exact expected values surfaced. This is the behavioral detail an agent needs to trust and interpret the call.

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?

Front-loads the non-destructive framing, then the per-method output, then the decision it enables. Every clause earns its place despite the length; nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does so concretely (meta tag found/not with expected tag, DNS TXT found/not with expected record, email magic-link qualification). For a one-parameter dry-run tool this is 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents token fully. The description alludes to tokens ('wrong token') but adds no format or source detail beyond what the schema states. 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 and resource ('non-destructive dry run of ownership verification for a Toolfound submission') and explicitly frames itself as the read-only counterpart to toolfound_verify_submission. An agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('distinguish my deploy is not live yet from wrong token') and names the alternative to call afterward ('before calling toolfound_verify_submission'). Nothing is left to inference.

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 burden and does well: it discloses the action is free, requires ownership verification via a magic link sent to the supplied email (or meta-tag/DNS TXT), and lists the resulting capabilities (editing, badges, analytics, open-to-acquisition flag). It omits failure/rejection behavior and any rate or timing constraints, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cost, then requirements, then benefits. Each sentence carries information, though the verification detail is compressed into a slightly dense middle sentence.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the verification flow and the unlocked capabilities. What the agent should do after calling (e.g., wait for the magic link, check verification status via toolfound_check_verification) is left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents both slug and email. The description reinforces the email guidance ('use an address at the product's domain') but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource — 'Claim an existing Toolfound listing as the product's owner' — and the word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling toolfound_submit_product, which handles new entries. It is clear without naming a sibling explicitly, so it falls just 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?

It gives clear conditions for use: the listing must already exist, ownership verification is required, and the email should be at the product's domain. It also presents alternative verification paths (meta-tag / DNS TXT). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming submit_product as the alternative for unlisted products.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the inputs must be opaque hex, the result is "evidence-bounded," and a canonical web tool URL is returned.

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 sentences with zero filler; the core action and its constraint are front-loaded 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?

Return values are largely covered by the output schema, and the description usefully flags that a web tool URL comes back. "Evidence-bounded result" is slightly internal jargon, but for a two-parameter, read-only calculator this is close to 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% for both parameters, so the description must carry semantic weight. It adds that the two colors are hex and must be opaque, but does not specify accepted syntax (e.g. leading '#', 3- vs 6-digit) beyond the maxLength=7 hint.

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 (Calculate) and resource (WCAG text contrast ratio) with a precise scope (two opaque hex colors). No sibling tool covers color analysis, so the agent can identify it uniquely from the name plus this sentence.

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?

"before shipping a landing page or launch graphic" gives clear timing/context for when to reach for it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools overlap, so there is little risk of mis-selection.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds behavior beyond that: which duplicate is kept ('first exact match'), that it reports how many rows changed, and that a canonical URL is returned.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the purpose and dedup policy, with the output note last. Minor jargon ('evidence-bounded result') costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, annotations cover the safety profile, and there is only one simple input. The description supplies the remaining essentials – dedup rule and reported change count – so an agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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?

There is one parameter ('csv') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place to add semantics. It hints at expected content (campaign/listing-export rows) but never describes the parameter's format or the 12000-char limit; the self-evident name keeps this merely adequate rather than poor.

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 and resource (remove repeated rows from campaign/listing-export CSVs) and specifies the dedup policy of keeping the first exact match. The scope clearly separates it from the nearest sibling json_to_csv, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

By naming 'campaign or listing-export rows' the description implies the context in which to use it, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to or against alternatives such as json_to_csv.

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?

Annotations already fully declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world). The description's only added statement is about return shape ('evidence-bounded result and canonical web tool URL'), which is redundant given the output schema. No extra behavioral context such as filtering semantics or completeness guarantees is provided.

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 sentences with no filler, and the core filtering action is front-loaded ahead of the return note. It is tight, though 'dated' and 'evidence-bounded' are slightly jargon-y for the space they consume.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the four enum parameters are at least enumerated in the schema. But with 0% parameter descriptions, no usage guidance, and many adjacent siblings, the definition leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to fill.

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 carry parameter meaning; it partially does by mapping its four named dimensions (product fit, cost, format, link policy) onto the four required params. It does not, however, explain the enum values themselves (e.g., 'conditional' dofollow or the launchModel variants), which remain opaque without schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb (filter) and resource (dated launch-directory evidence) and lists the four filtering dimensions, so an agent understands the tool matches directories against criteria. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like toolfound_distribution_plan, toolfound_get_launch_calendar, or toolfound_search_tools, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 select this tool over alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites, even though several siblings serve adjacent launch-planning purposes. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the entity being filtered.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is 'evidence-bounded' and returns a canonical web tool URL, which is modest but real context. It stops short of explaining the channel-input format or any run constraints.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the input-to-output transformation. The only marginal item is the return-value sentence, which partly duplicates the output schema, but it is short and 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the read-only profile. However, an agent still cannot tell how to format the channels string or how this differs from launch-calendar/readiness siblings, so it is adequate but not complete for a 2-parameter required-input tool.

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 adds the meaningful 'up to eight channels' cap that is absent from the schema, but never explains how the multiple channels are encoded in the single 1000-char string (delimiter, naming), leaving the main ambiguity unresolved. The launchDate format is already covered by the schema pattern.

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 concrete verb and resource: turns a launch date plus chosen channels into a preparation timetable. The 'up to eight channels' and date-range framing make the purpose clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_launch_calendar or launch_readiness, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given, even though several siblings (get_launch_calendar, launch_readiness, launch_review) plausibly overlap. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose sentence.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds that the plan is 'bounded' and that a canonical web tool URL is returned, which is modest extra context, but 'bounded' is never explained and no limits, rate behavior, or failure modes are 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The second sentence partly duplicates what the output schema already conveys, which slightly dilutes an otherwise efficient structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explaining, but with four required parameters at 0% schema coverage the description leaves 'stage' undocumented and gives no parameter semantics. For a tool this input-bounded, that gap keeps it at minimum-viable completeness rather than fully sufficient.

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 carries the burden for four required parameters. It mentions three (goal, participants, time) but ignores 'stage' entirely, and adds no formats, ranges, or meaning beyond the parameter names - noting nothing about valid 'stage' values or that counts are passed as strings.

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 ('Create') and two concrete artifacts ('interview plan and evidence log'), plus the inputs that drive them, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling planning tools like distribution_plan or launch_review. It stops short of naming any sibling or scoping boundary, so it earns a solid 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 description never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as launch_review or distribution_plan, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The only context is an implicit 'you have a learning goal, participants, and time', which is a restatement of the required inputs rather than usage guidance.

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?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly adds context about result interpretation: results are not personal recommendations and unknown capabilities remain unknown. That is useful expectation-setting, but it does not cover latency, ranking, pagination, or result limits, so it remains at a moderate level.

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 sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, and the disclaimer follows efficiently. Slightly more structure or a parameter hint could improve it without adding much length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be covered. However, with 0% schema description coverage and a sibling search tool, the description should clarify how this differs from toolfound_search_tools and what the pricing filter does. Those omissions leave an agent unable to call it 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 carries the full burden of explaining the task and pricing parameters. It only implies that the input is a bounded task description and says nothing about the pricing filter or the 500-character limit, leaving both parameters largely undocumented.

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 says it matches a task description against catalogue evidence, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling toolfound_search_tools, which sounds like a competing search mechanism. An agent cannot tell from the description alone when to pick this over search_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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as toolfound_search_tools or toolfound_get_alternatives. The caveat that results are not personal recommendations implies a usage context, but it does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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 burden, and it does a fair job: it discloses the ranking algorithm (community votes plus an AI listing score) and enumerates the returned fields (tagline, pricing model, votes, canonical listing URL). It stops short of stating auth requirements, result limits, or pagination behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then ranking semantics, then usage, then return contents. Front-loaded and 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the ranking basis, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gaps remain around result count and ordering guarantees, but it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only refers to it obliquely as 'a given product', adding essentially no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides — baseline 3.

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 (List) and resource (alternatives to a given product), and even defines what 'alternatives' means operationally — tools in the same primary category ranked by points. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_product or get_trending without needing to open a schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage: 'Useful for alternatives to X and comparison questions.' That's clear context for when to reach for it, but it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer search_tools or get_product instead).

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 burden and does add real behavioral context beyond the schema: the embedded links deep-link to the listing with varied anchor text, the embedder controls the rel attribute, and listing status is never conditioned on embedding a badge. It omits read-only/idempotency framing and any auth or slug-not-found error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and result, two compact sentences with no filler. The parenthetical variant list and the rel/optionality clauses are dense but each conveys distinct value, so it is slightly cluttered rather than wasteful.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the return content is (three badge snippets) and that badges carry no listing-status obligation. It leaves minor gaps around error behavior for an invalid slug, but nothing essential 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the slug field (bounds included). The description adds no syntax, format, or example for the slug, so 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 and resource ('Get the three copy-paste badge embed snippets for a Toolfound listing') and enumerates the exact variants returned, which no sibling tool offers. An agent can distinguish this from toolfound_share_preview or toolfound_campaign_links without inspecting schemas.

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 establishes context by explaining that badges exist for embedders and are optional/earned, which implies when the tool is relevant, but it never says when an agent should call it versus another tool or what prerequisite listing state is needed. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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 burden and does well: it discloses that seats are scarce and limited per day, that availability is shown openly with no hidden queues, and that launching is permanently free. It does not address permissions, rate limits, or whether results can go stale, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned data, then the horizon, then the next-step routing. Most sentences earn their place, though the 'Launching is permanently free / no hidden queues' line leans promotional rather than operational.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates well by spelling out the shape of the returned data (featured vs taken seats, cap, queued count) and the follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter already documents the default (30) and maximum (180). The description repeats the same horizon facts, so it adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema — the 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 names a specific resource (the Toolfound launch calendar) and enumerates exactly what it returns: featured seat availability, taken counts, daily cap, and queued launches. This distinguishes it from siblings like toolfound_get_launch_status and toolfound_submit_product without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit context ('Use this to pick a launch date before submitting') and names the downstream tool and parameter (toolfound_submit_product with preferred_launch_date). It does not, however, say when NOT to use this versus toolfound_get_launch_status, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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, and it does add real behavioral context: it discloses the returned fields (queue position, launch date, listing URL) and asserts a transparency guarantee about queue state. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior, but for a read-only status check the disclosure is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource in the first clause, followed by the enumerated return values. The second sentence is partly promotional ('never hides queue state') but does convey a behavioral guarantee, so waste is limited.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating what the call returns (state, queue position, launch date, listing URL), which is what an agent most needs here. Auth and error-handling details are absent but minor for a simple read lookup.

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 definitions of both url and submission_id are already documented. The description only adds that either identifier can be used to locate a submission, which is marginal beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Clear specific verb (check status) and resource (Toolfound submission), and it enumerates the returnable states (pending verification, queued, launched), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many nearby status-oriented siblings such as toolfound_verify_submission, toolfound_check_verification, or toolfound_get_launch_calendar.

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 the name and the phrase 'by submission id or product URL,' but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the large set of sibling status/verification tools. The agent must infer that this is the passive status lookup versus the verification actions.

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 usefully discloses the ownership-verification mechanism (DNS TXT, meta tag, or domain email) and that alternatives are bundled in the response, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/unknown slug, error handling, 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?

Front-loaded with the action and identifier, then a compact field enumeration. The third sentence about verification and the alternatives note are relevant, though the field list is dense enough to be slightly list-like.

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 output schema, the description does the work of describing the return payload by enumerating fields (description, tagline, pricing, tags, socials, votes, launch date, verification status, canonical URL, alternatives). That is nearly complete for a read-by-id tool; only not-found/error behavior 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is already documented in the schema with an example. The description restates 'by slug' without adding format or lookup semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 and resource ('Fetch the full Toolfound listing for a product by slug') and enumerates exactly what the listing contains, so an agent can distinguish it from search_tools or get_alternatives at a glance. The single-resource-by-identifier scope is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by slug: ... (from search results or the listing URL)' implies usage context by telling the agent where the slug comes from, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. get_alternatives vs this tool's embedded alternatives section).

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 burden, and it discloses useful behavior: results are community-voted plus an AI listing score, entries are public, ownership-verified, and date-assigned. It stops short of covering result limits, ordering ties, or pagination for a leaderboard, which an agent would want to know.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core definition before the supporting context about the platform and ranking. Some platform-marketing phrasing ('transparent queue', 'ownership-verified') is marginally promotional but still aids differentiation.

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 this covers purpose, scope, and ranking basis adequately. Since there is no output schema, it could say more about how many items are returned or how ties are broken, but nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'period' parameter is a documented enum, so the schema already does the work. The description's 'day, week, or month' merely restates the enum without adding format or default behavior.

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 and resource ('top products launched in the last day, week, or month, ranked by points') and defines the ranking formula, which cleanly separates it from siblings like toolfound_search_tools or toolfound_get_product.

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?

Gives explicit use cases ('what launched recently', 'trending tools' questions), which is clear context for when to reach for this tool. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., keyword lookup should go to search_tools), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it pins the operation to exactly one public HTTPS page, and explicitly disclaims what the result does NOT mean (indexing, crawler treatment, ranking) and that redirect history is unobserved. These caveats prevent over-interpretation of the output, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs for an SEO-flavored inspection.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the two caveats that matter most. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema, and every sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gap with scope and interpretation limits. Minor omissions such as rate limits or behavior on pages that fail to fetch are the only things keeping this from a 5.

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%; both sourceUrl and targetUrl are documented in the schema, including 'ignoring fragments' for the target. The description restates the public-HTTPS constraint but adds no format, normalization, or matching-syntax detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb+resource pair: 'fetch one public HTTPS source page' and 'report matching anchor markup for a public HTTPS target, including observed rel tokens.' This is precise enough that an agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling (e.g. toolfound_share_preview or toolfound_campaign_links), which keeps it 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?

Usage is implied by the stated purpose but never spelled out: there is no 'use this when you need X' and no named alternative. The only routing-flavored text is a negative scope note ('does not establish indexing, crawler treatment, or ranking impact'), which constrains interpretation rather than telling the agent when to pick this tool over another.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: explicit size limits, formula-injection protection, and that the result is 'evidence-bounded' with a canonical web tool URL. It does not quantify the limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the secondary detail about return payload. Slightly loose phrasing ('evidence-bounded result') but well within acceptable length.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required, yet the description still notes the returned URL. For a single-parameter, non-destructive conversion tool this is largely complete; only the parameter format and concrete limits are underspecified.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry meaning. It conveys the expected shape ('small flat JSON export') and hints at limits, but never documents the 'json' parameter by name, its accepted syntax, or how the 12000-character cap manifests to the caller.

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 and resource ('Convert a small flat JSON export into a downloadable spreadsheet') and scopes it with 'small flat', which implicitly separates it from the schema-heavy siblings. It does not explicitly name csv_deduplicator or any other sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the fragment 'for launch exports' in the title, which is implied context rather than guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: the result is 'evidence-bounded' and it returns a canonical web tool URL. However, it does not explain what 'evidence-bounded' means operationally or what happens with a partial draft, so the addition is modest.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return behavior trailing. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence leans on jargon ('evidence-bounded result') that could have been spent on concrete field criteria.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. Still, with 5 undocumented parameters, no required-field indication, and no criteria for what counts as 'complete,' the definition leaves an agent unable to predict or explain the result beyond the broad gist.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and it says nothing about name, logoURL, tagline, websiteUrl, or description. The names are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but no format, constraint, or 'which fields are scored' guidance is added.

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 and object: checks whether an editable product draft has the fields required for a complete directory submission. That is distinguishable from verify_submission or launch_review in intent, though the description never names those siblings or draws the line explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as toolfound_launch_review or toolfound_verify_submission. The agent must infer timing and relationship to sibling tools entirely on its own.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two meaningful bits beyond that: the non-negative input constraint (a validation behavior) and the fact that it returns the canonical web tool URL. It stops there, adding nothing about the calculation method or bounds.

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 tight sentences with the verb front-loaded and zero filler; the return behavior is stated second where it belongs. It is well-sized, though the second sentence is somewhat generic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the tool is a simple arithmetic operation. Yet with 0% parameter description coverage, an agent still cannot tell what each of the three counts means or how they combine, leaving the definition only marginally 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 carries the full burden. It only broadly labels the inputs as 'non-negative counts' and hints at 'signup and conversion rates,' giving no per-parameter meaning, no indication that conversions is optional, and no explanation of how visits and signups relate to the computed rates.

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 and resource: 'Calculate ... signup and conversion rates.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like launch_readiness or relaunch_decision. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from the other launch-oriented tools in the set, so it stops 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only usage signal is the passing implication that the caller supplies the counts, which is not real routing guidance.

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 must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that results include product counts and curated intros, signaling a self-contained read-only listing. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or ordering, which is acceptable but not rich for a no-annotation 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 sentences, no filler. The return content is front-loaded and the usage guidance follows, so an agent gets the essentials immediately.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing with no output schema or annotations, the description supplies enough: what is listed and what each entry contains. It stops short of describing ordering or result size, which would be nice but is not essential.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 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 and resource ('List every category in the Toolfound directory') plus the payload ('product counts and curated intros'), which clearly separates it from search-oriented siblings like toolfound_search_tools and toolfound_find_by_task.

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?

Explicitly names two use cases: browsing the index, and mapping a user's need to a category 'before searching' — the latter implicitly sequences it ahead of the search tools. No explicit exclusions or named alternative tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: output is deterministic, bounded to supplied evidence, does not invent claims, and a canonical web tool URL is returned.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the transformation and followed by the output guarantee. No filler, nothing restated from the name or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the safety story is carried by annotations. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no distinction from the claim_listing sibling, the description does not fully equip an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 five parameters (four required), so the description must carry the semantic load. It only gestures at 'supplied product facts' and never mentions name, audience, problem, outcome, or differentiator, leaving every parameter ambiguous.

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+resource: turns supplied product facts into listing copy. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling toolfound_claim_listing, which an agent could easily confuse it with when deciding what to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as claim_listing or launch_review. Usage is only weakly implied by 'turn supplied product facts into listing copy'.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'evidence-bounded result' and the canonical web URL; it does not explain behavior when some or all of the five optional inputs are omitted, which is the main behavioral unknown here.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence spends words on the output that the output schema already covers.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with five optional parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the meaning of every input and the all-optional case unaddressed, which is a real gap for a tool an agent must invoke.

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% and the description names no parameter, so none of name, logoURL, audience, newsAngle or websiteUrl is clarified. The phrase 'materials editors usually need' gestures at these fields but adds no per-parameter meaning over the bare 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?

The verb+resource are identifiable ('build a checklist' for newsletter pitch readiness), but 'honest pitch checklist' and 'materials editors usually need' stay abstract and never name the actual inputs. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like toolfound_launch_readiness or toolfound_launch_review, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite many adjacent launch-readiness tools in the sibling list. The agent gets no signal for choosing this over toolfound_launch_readiness.

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 and does so well: it discloses that this anonymous transport does not perform the write, only returns an eligibility result, and that authorization happens elsewhere. It doesn't describe failure modes or the response shape, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loading the operation and its identity before the transport limitation. 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 mutation-intent tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: that this transport only reports eligibility rather than writing. Return-value detail is absent, but the critical caveat an agent needs is present.

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 all four parameters (including the note and date fallback semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Relaunch an already-launched Toolfound listing') and clarifies it's the same listing/URL with a new launch date, which scopes it apart from submit_product and verify_submission. It does not name a sibling directly, but the 'already-launched' qualifier does the differentiation work.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('already-launched' listing, 'fresh verified-owner session') and tells the agent what to do instead if the session isn't available (direct owners to the dashboard). No explicit when-not against toolfound_relaunch_decision, but context is adequate.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is 'evidence-bounded' and returns a 'canonical web tool URL', which is useful extra context, but it says nothing about how the recommendation is bounded or what the payload contains.

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 sentences, zero filler, decision options and inputs front-loaded 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described in detail, but with five undocumented required enum inputs and no explanation of how the inputs drive the three-way decision, the definition is too thin for an agent to call it 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% across five required enum parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It references 'change' and 'evidence' obliquely but never explains the enum values (small/major/direction, strong/release/none) or the roles of audienceChanged, listingCurrent, and measurementReady.

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 (choose) and a three-way resource outcome (relaunch / regular update / more preparation), which is plainly distinct from the action-oriented sibling toolfound_relaunch. It does not explicitly name or route against the close siblings toolfound_launch_readiness or toolfound_launch_review, so it stops 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?

It implies the trigger condition — the decision is driven by 'the size of the change and launch evidence you provide' — but never states when to call this versus running a launch readiness review or invoking the relaunch tool itself. Usage is inferable from the sibling list rather than spelled out.

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, and it does disclose the return payload (taglines, pricing model, vote counts, canonical URLs). It omits limits, result count, pagination, and any auth/rate-limit notes, which matters for a search tool with no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and match fields, then returns, then usage. Only minor filler in 'the launch platform and tool directory built agent-first', which is more branding than orientation.

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, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers what it searches, what comes back, and when to reach for it. Sibling disambiguation and result-limit behavior are the remaining gaps, but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the free-text query and its examples. The description's 'by name, tagline, or tag' restates roughly what the schema says, adding little beyond the baseline.

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 (toolfound.com SaaS/dev tools directory) plus the match fields (name, tagline, tag). Clear and unambiguous on its own. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like toolfound_get_product, toolfound_get_alternatives, or toolfound_find_by_task, whose territory ('compare', 'a tool for a job') it partially claims.

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?

Provides a when-to-use trigger ('when a user asks to find, compare, or discover a tool'), which is helpful context. But it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, and its 'compare'/'for a job' triggers overlap with get_alternatives and find_by_task, leaving the agent to guess which sibling wins.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a 'safe' preview and mentions the canonical web tool URL, which is modest extra context, but 'evidence-bounded result' is unexplained jargon rather than genuine behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the concrete artifact (1200×630 SVG). Nothing is padded, though 'evidence-bounded result' is filler that does not earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the tool is simple at two required params. Still, the description omits any usage context or the meaning of the two inputs, leaving it merely adequate for an export tool.

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 carries the burden of clarifying the two parameters. It names 'product name and tagline' implicitly and calls them 'bounded', but adds no format, content, or constraint meaning beyond the minLength/maxLength already in 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 (Export) and resource (a 1200×630 SVG preview) sourced from a product name and tagline. That is concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what artifact is produced. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling concern, and no sibling here overlaps enough to matter for routing.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'from a bounded product name and tagline' implies the input context, but the agent must infer when this preview is the right call versus other toolfound outputs.

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?

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description need not restate safety. It adds some value by characterizing the result as 'evidence-bounded' and noting a canonical web tool URL is returned, but it omits any detail about the underlying calculation, rounding, or how edge cases are handled.

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 tight sentences with the core function front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though it is perhaps slightly under-specified rather than over-specified.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but with five undocumented string parameters at 0% schema coverage the description should carry the input-format burden and does not. For a calculator whose correctness depends entirely on unit conventions, this leaves a meaningful gap.

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% and all five required parameters are untyped strings, so the schema provides no guidance on units or format. The description does not compensate: it names output concepts (clicks, signups, customers) rather than input fields, leaving critical ambiguity such as whether margin/signupRate/customerRate are percentages or decimals and whether cost/revenue include currency symbols.

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 (estimate) and the exact outputs (clicks, signups, customers needed to recover a sponsorship cost), so an agent knows precisely what computation this performs. It is not differentiated against any sibling, but no sibling in the list performs sponsorship break-even math, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

'from your own funnel assumptions' implicitly signals a prerequisite (you must supply your own conversion data), which is a mild usage hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance, leaving the agent to infer context.

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 burden and does disclose substantial behavior: mandatory ownership verification, idempotent resubmission, free launches, no inbox access needed, and what one call returns. It does not cover error/failure behavior or any rate or size limits beyond what the schema states, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Dense but tightly written single paragraph with the core action front-loaded and the AGENTS: block clearly separated for the calling agent. It is long, and a few clauses (free-slot counter, ordering of returned fields) could be trimmed without loss.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: required inputs, the mandatory verification follow-up, idempotency, free-vs-paid expectations, and the contents of the response. An agent can invoke this correctly and know its next step without further discovery.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: logo_url defaults to the site icon, description renders as plain-text paragraphs with 100-200 words reading best and >100 words qualifying for indexing, and preferred dates earlier than the next free date are moved forward. It leaves the x_handle and pricing_model semantics largely to 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 and resource ('Submit a product to launch on toolfound.com') and identifies the platform's role, which cleanly separates it from siblings like toolfound_relaunch, toolfound_verify_submission and toolfound_get_product. An agent knows this is the entry-point creation call.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: verification is mandatory, the verify_token works with toolfound_verify_submission via meta_tag/dns_txt, toolfound_check_verification dry-runs the checks, and the emailed magic link is a human fallback. It also states the idempotency rule for resubmitting a known URL, so when/when-not is fully covered.

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 burden and does disclose the key side effect: on success the launch is queued at its assigned position and date, and that domain records are checked on demand. It does not cover failure behavior, whether tokens expire, whether the call is idempotent, or permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and token requirement, followed by rationale and outcome. Dense but no filler; the parenthetical token-source list is long yet informative.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, and the success side effect, but says nothing about what a response looks like or how failure surfaces. An agent can invoke it correctly but cannot anticipate the result shape.

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% and the schema documents the single token parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by enumerating where the token comes from (email magic link, meta tag, DNS TXT record), which clarifies valid token sources the schema does not.

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 ('Complete the mandatory ownership verification') and resource (Toolfound submission) with the token as the mechanism. It is distinguishable from the similar-sounding sibling toolfound_check_verification because it explicitly frames itself as completing verification rather than checking it, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions: use the token from the email magic link, or after placing the meta tag / DNS TXT record. It makes clear this is a mandatory step in the launch flow. It does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over toolfound_check_verification or what to do if verification is already complete.

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