SteadySite

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by defining the 'warn' (expiring within 30 days) and 'bad' (expired or down) status semantics, disclosing a 15-minute cache, and stating the rate limit of 15 fresh lookups per 10 minutes. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the operational constraints an agent needs to avoid throttling.

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 front-loaded sentences: first the returned data, then the triggering questions, then status codes and caching/rate limits. No redundant restatement of the title, and every sentence contributes operational value.

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

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

Output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, and the description still covers status thresholds, caching, and rate limits for a one-parameter read tool. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

The single 'domain' parameter is fully described in the schema (hostname or URL with examples) at 100% coverage, so the description neither needs to nor does add format or syntax detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Look up') with an enumerated resource set: SSL certificate expiry (date, days left, issuer), domain registration expiry (date, days left, registrar), and HTTP status. The exact returned facts are named, so an agent can distinguish this from get_plans and start_monitoring without opening 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 states when to use it: when someone asks when a site's certificate or domain expires, who issued it, or whether the site is up. No when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, but the sibling tools are unrelated enough that the trigger conditions suffice.

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), and the description adds real context beyond them: it discloses the return contents and that price is denominated in USD. It stops short of describing ordering or the structure of the returned collection, but the substantive behavioral facts are covered.

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, both load-bearing: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads when to call it. No filler, no repetition of the title 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the whole burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by listing every plan tier and attribute. An agent knows what it will get and when to call it without needing further inference.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The description correctly makes no parameter claims, matching the baseline for a no-argument tool.

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?

"Return SteadySite plans (Free, Pro, Agency)" gives a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the exact fields returned (monthly USD price, monitors, check interval, client groups, white-label, checkout status). Nothing about it could be confused with check_ssl_domain_expiry or start_monitoring.

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 when someone asks what SteadySite costs or which plan fits" is an explicit trigger condition tied to user intent, not just a restatement of the name. There are no when-not conditions, but the sibling tools are unrelated so no routing conflict exists.

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 and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by explaining the two-step handoff and that 'Nothing is created until they confirm', which tells the agent the call itself has no side effects. It also adds cost/auth context (free plan, no credit card) that no annotation provides. It does not mention link expiry or whether the same link is reused on repeat calls, which is why it stops short of 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then the user flow, then the key guarantee. Every sentence contributes new information with no repetition of the schema 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?

For a one-parameter link-generator with an output schema present, the description covers what is returned, what the recipient must do, and that nothing is committed until confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to call or explain the result 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (hostname or URL, with an example), the schema already carries the semantics. The description only adds that the domain is pre-filled in the sign-up flow, which is marginal extra meaning.

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: 'Return a sign-up link that starts SteadySite monitoring ... for a domain.' The listed deliverables (uptime, SSL expiry, domain expiry alerts, monthly client report) make it clearly distinct from check_ssl_domain_expiry (a diagnostic read) and get_plans (plan listing).

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 sign-up scenario is implied clearly by the described flow (person opens link, signs in, confirms), but the description never states when to choose this over check_ssl_domain_expiry or get_plans, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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