What's New

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by revealing response contents (slugs, categories, platforms) and filtering behavior, which is useful beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes key details (filters, returned fields). Every word 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?

For a simple, read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filtering adequately. It provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could note any pagination or response limits if relevant.

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 describes both parameters. The description's mention of filtering by category and name aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning or detail beyond it.

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 lists tracked products with slugs, categories, and platforms. It specifies the resource ('products') and action (list/filter), and the mention of 'products' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_releases.

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 description implies usage by mentioning filters ('Filter by category and/or a name query') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It gives clear context but lacks direct 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=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying the full-catalog scope and that results include permalinks, which goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 concise sentences provide the essential scope and output details without filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple search tool with 2 well-documented parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what is searched, what is returned, and that results include permalinks. No critical missing context for an AI agent to use it 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage: query is fully described and category has an enum plus description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies a specific action ('full-catalog search') across two resources (product names and release history) and states the return type (matching products and releases with permalinks). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_products and whats_new, which are listing and recent-changes tools respectively.

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 description implies this is the tool for searching the entire catalog rather than listing or browsing, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use list_products or whats_new, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or alternative-tool 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 and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add behavioral nuance. It adds that since_version filters to releases shipped after a known version and that results include per-category change counts. This is useful beyond the annotations, though version-matching edge cases are left to the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately giving the key parameter guidance. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simple scope, the description is adequate: it names the resource (product releases), the data (notes, per-category counts), and the main optional filter. Without an output schema, it doesn't detail the exact response shape, but the description provides enough for selection and likely invocation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the core meaning of since_version ('the version you run') but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 surfaces a product's newest releases with notes and can filter by since_version. It differentiates from list_products (product catalog) and somewhat from search_releases (release lookup), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

This is a read-only tool for fetching product release notes. It gives a clear use context ('newest releases with notes') and explains when to pass since_version. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention sibling alternatives, but the context is clear.

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