KrakenShield

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'passive and non-intrusive: one TLS handshake and two page requests, like a browser visit' discloses load/side-effect profile, and it describes the response shape (issues most severe first plus a link to the full audit). Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so this is a meaningful supplement, though it says nothing about rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the header list is packed efficiently into a parenthetical enumeration rather than separate sentences. The third sentence about request count is slightly tangential but short and it earns its place as the safety profile.

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, but the description compensates by stating what is returned (issues ordered most severe first, plus a link to the full audit) and the scope of the check. Inputs are fully documented by the schema. Slightly more detail on the returned issue structure would make it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'domain' and the 'language' enum with its default and usage note. The description adds nothing further about parameters; 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 ('Checks the HTTPS setup of a public website') and then enumerates exactly what is inspected (TLS certificate, negotiated version, redirect, security headers). This is unambiguous and easily separable from the unrelated siblings get_pricing and search_cyber_knowledge.

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 'public website' and 'checks... in a few seconds', and it points at a full graded SSL/TLS audit as a follow-up, but it never states when to use this versus doing a deeper audit or when this tool is inappropriate. No explicit exclusions or alternative-tool 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds domain context (costs quoted in Kredits, Kredit packs in euros excluding VAT) but discloses no caching, freshness, or rate-limit 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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Slightly long parenthetical enumeration, but every clause carries information about what is priced.

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 read-only price listing with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the scope of the returned data adequately. Only the absence of usage/routing guidance keeps it from being 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 100% and the single optional 'language' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the enum values and default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 resource (KrakenShield current prices) and enumerates exactly what is included: audit types, Cyber Academy training, and Kredit packs. It is a clear retrieval purpose, though it never names the sibling tools or explains how it differs from check_ssl or search_cyber_knowledge.

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 exclusions. The content enumeration implies an agent should call it for pricing questions, but that is inference rather than stated 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. The description supplements this with useful behavior the annotations do not cover: results are short passages carrying page URLs intended for citation, and the corpus is a free public library, implying no auth or mutation concerns.

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 what the tool searches, followed by what it returns and how to phrase input. Every sentence carries information; only very minor redundancy between the title and the opening verb.

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?

Covers scope, content types, input style, and return format (passages plus citation URLs) despite there being no output schema. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 100%, so both parameters (query, language) are fully documented with examples and an enum. The description's 'use a few precise keywords' reinforces the query parameter but adds no syntax or format detail 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 (searches) and resource (KrakenShield Knowledge Center), then enumerates the exact content types covered: glossary, acronyms, certifications, and the 'Cyber from A to Z' guide. This is unambiguous and easily distinguishable from check_ssl and get_pricing.

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 usage guidance ('Use a few precise keywords') and example query shapes, and the language parameter description tells the agent to match the conversation language. It does not name conditions for choosing an alternative, but no sibling overlaps in scope, so this is close to sufficient.

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