Vocenya Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the output is Markdown 'exactly as published' and is scoped to a single page, which matters because there is no output schema to convey the return format.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the slug taxonomy and the search_docs pointer. The slug enumeration is long but earns its space given there is no enum constraint; only minor tightening is possible.

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 covers purpose, valid inputs, output format (Markdown, verbatim), and the fallback path via search_docs. 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 schema already gives slug examples, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating the accepted slug vocabulary (index, guide names, 'reference', 'reference/leads'), which effectively substitutes for the missing enum and tells the agent what a valid slug looks like.

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 one page of the Vocenya developer docs as Markdown') and pins the granularity ('one page'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_docs, which the agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

'Use search_docs to find a slug' explicitly routes the agent to the alternative when the slug is unknown, which is the main usage fork. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., auth, whether unpublished pages are reachable), so it stops short of full when/when-not 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 provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the exact return format (Markdown) and its sections — scope, params, body, responses, sample code in four languages — which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists.

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?

One sentence plus a short example, front-loaded with the action and result format. The long enumeration of returned sections is justified because no output schema exists, though it is denser than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, in what format, and a worked example. With no output schema, the section-by-section account of the response is exactly the missing piece.

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 both 'method' and 'path' are already documented in the schema, including the concrete-id alternative. The description's 'Example: method "POST", path "/leads"' reinforces but does not extend the schema's meaning, so 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 one Vocenya API endpoint in full, as Markdown') and enumerates exactly what the returned document contains. It is clear enough to distinguish from a bare list or search, but it never names the siblings (list_endpoints, search_docs) that retrieve endpoints in other shapes.

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 'one ... endpoint' plus the method/path example, so an agent can infer this is the detail-lookup tool rather than a lister. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when list_endpoints or search_docs would be preferable, and no note about what happens for an unknown method/path.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds what the listing returns and that results are grouped by resource, which is real context. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, or limits, so it is not fully rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, then the filtering option, then the hand-off to the sibling. No filler.

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-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned field set and grouping, compensating for the absent output schema, and routes to the detail sibling. Nothing needed to invoke it 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 single tag parameter is already documented with examples ("Leads", "Outbound calls", "Do Not Call"). The description repeats the tag concept and adds one more example ("Webhooks") but no format or matching semantics beyond the schema, 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 (List) and resource (endpoints of the Vocenya REST API) and enumerates the returned fields (method, path, summary, required scope). It also names the sibling get_endpoint for the detail case, so an agent can distinguish it 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 explicit usage context: pass a tag such as "Leads" or "Webhooks" to scope to one resource, and directs the agent to get_endpoint for details on a single endpoint. When-to-use and the alternative are both stated.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (best matches with page URL), which is useful for chaining, but says nothing about result counts, ranking behavior, truncation, or empty-result handling.

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-loaded with the covered corpus and immediately followed by the return value and next step. 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what comes back (best matches with page URL) and how to continue. Only minor gaps remain around result limits and behavior when nothing matches, which is acceptable for a simple one-parameter search 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents query fully with concrete examples. The description adds no syntax, quoting, or phrasing guidance 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 (search) and resource (Vocenya developer docs), enumerates the covered corpus (guides on auth, webhooks, pagination, outbound calling, live chat, MCP, plus every API endpoint), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_doc_page/get_endpoint as the follow-up read 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?

Clearly frames the workflow: search here, then read a result with get_doc_page or get_endpoint, which routes the agent correctly against all three siblings. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g. use list_endpoints for browsing rather than searching), so it falls short of a full 5.

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