Desvela ARD Registry — free preflight(domain)

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: data is served from an ARD index when fresh (<7 days) or live-checked otherwise. It lists the exact files and directives checked. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid domain) or rate limits, which would push it to 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the main purpose with concrete examples. Every word adds value—no fluff, no repetition of schema fields.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned (specific files and robots.txt) and the caching strategy. It mentions the tool is free. It may lack detail on output format or error responses, but for a simple domain check tool, it is largely 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description does not define the 'domain' parameter beyond what is obvious from context. It adds no format examples or constraints (e.g., 'use fully qualified domain name like example.com'). Baseline for 1 parameter is moderate; description partially compensates by implying the domain's role.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves what a domain publishes for AI agents, listing specific files (ai-catalog.json, llms.txt, agents.md) and robots.txt directives for named AI bots. It also explains the caching behavior, making the purpose highly specific and distinct from siblings.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling 'watch', there is no explicit comparison or condition for when preflight is appropriate, nor instructions on prerequisites (e.g., domain format) or when not to use it.

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