Triremes

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 real domain context: how the score is computed (share of failed checks weighted by seriousness, 0% = no gaps, higher is worse), the exact label set, and the being_measured state where no price exists and purchase is blocked. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown id.

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?

It is a single very long run-on sentence that front-loads the purpose before a dense field list. The field enumeration earns its place given there is no output schema, but the clause structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: score semantics, label enumeration, failed check names, measurement time, price, sale count and times, and page. The main gap is unspecified behavior when the id does not exist.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete id example ('3f9a1c07b2e85d64') showing the expected format, which goes slightly beyond the schema, but it does not repeat or expand on the schema's note that ids come from search_website_gaps.

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 makes clear this is a single-site lookup by id returning an SEO gap score, and the enumerated fields (score, label, failed checks, price, sale history) separate it from the sibling search_website_gaps, which searches. It never uses a verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', reading instead as a fragment, but the resource and scope are 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_website_gaps or search_problems, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only usage-adjacent information is the being_measured case, which describes a return state rather than when to select the tool.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description reasonably spends its words on what comes back: title, tier, report counts, first/last report dates, listing date, summary, lead-vs-idea-report type, price, sale counts and page. That is valuable given there is no output schema. It loses a point for never defining what 'biggest' orders by (report count? price?) and for not mentioning that results are paginated.

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 purpose clause is front-loaded, which is good, but the return-field inventory is a single unbroken sentence of roughly sixty words strung together with commas, which is hard to scan. A short bulleted or semicolon-grouped field list would have made the same content far more usable without adding 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?

With no output schema and four optional params, the description needs to say what a record contains, and it does so thoroughly, including the commercial fields (price, sale counts) that shape interpretation of max_sold. What is still missing is the meaning of the sort key and any note on pagination size, both of which matter for a list tool driven by a cursor.

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 cursor, query, kind and max_sold are already fully documented; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the lead/idea_report distinction and the notion of sales counts behind max_sold, but adds no format or behavior detail the schema does not already carry.

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?

Gives a specific verb and resource: 'Search the problems people have that Triremes lists', plus the ordering ('biggest first'). It does not reference any sibling (get_website_gap_score, search_website_gaps, show_samples), so the agent gets no explicit disambiguation, but the object of the search is distinct enough to separate it in practice.

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 reach for this tool versus the website-gap or sample tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'problems... that Triremes lists', and the closing sentence about buying on the page is commercial context, not invocation 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description contributes real context beyond them: each result is sold individually, price and sale history are included, and a site without an SEO score is in a being_measured state with no price and cannot be bought yet. It says nothing about page size, result caps or ordering, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is one long run-on sentence enumerating eight returned fields and a marketplace aside. Since there is no output schema some of that enumeration earns its place, yet the listing could be tightened considerably without losing meaning.

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 usefully explains what each result contains and handles the tricky being_measured edge case that would otherwise confuse an agent seeing null prices. It is close to complete for a read-only search tool, with pagination covered only by the cursor parameter's own schema description.

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%, including the gap_score enum's band definitions, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only loosely gestures at filters through phrases like 'what kind of business and where' and 'how many times it has been sold', adding no syntax, defaults or combination rules beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: searching business websites Triremes measured that have readability gaps for search engines and AI answer engines. That is far more informative than the title alone. It does not name or contrast the siblings (get_website_gap_score, search_problems, show_samples), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to find gap-scored websites for sale, and the being_measured note implies a caveat about unusable results. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-a-sibling guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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 fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the content is publicly readable ('pages anyone may read') — but says nothing about what the returned sample payload looks like or how it is structured.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so nothing is bloated, but the colon-and-slash construction ('poor SEO / AEO: what a buyer gets') is awkward and buries the key point. The most informative clause, 'what a buyer gets,' arrives late and is not front-loaded.

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-argument, read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description only needs to say what content comes back. It gestures at three artifacts (lead, idea report, website) but leaves their nature and relationship ambiguous, which is the minimum-viable level rather than 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter text is needed or expected.

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 is a noun phrase ('The free sample lead, idea report and website...') rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never says what the tool actually does — presumably returns sample/demo content. The phrase 'what a buyer gets, on pages anyone may read' hints at sample artifacts, but an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from the sibling search tools without guessing.

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 sibling is named, even though get_website_gap_score, search_problems, and search_website_gaps exist and could be confused with it. 'What a buyer gets' vaguely implies a demo/preview use case, but nothing states when to call this instead of the search tools.

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