apis-io

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects, making it insufficient.

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 efficiently convey purpose, filter options, and result kind selection without redundancy.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core search but lacks pagination guidance, return structure, and listing of all parameters.

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 only 21% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 8 of 14 parameters (q, tags, providers, artifact_types, industry, region, band, return), covering key search dimensions. Unexplained params (page, sort, limit, fields, min_score) are minor gaps.

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 searches the APIs.io catalog and lists specific filters (free text, tags, providers, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find_apis' which likely perform more specific lookups.

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 for broad catalog search but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-to-use/alternative 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, result limits, or error handling. Minimal transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise but sacrifices completeness. It could be restructured to front-load key information without being verbose.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to inform about result format, pagination behavior, error scenarios, or default sorting. Lacks necessary detail for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 23%, so the description needs to compensate. However, it only mentions three filtering dimensions (tag, provider, artifact type) and provides no explanation for critical parameters like q, band, page, sort, limit, match, fields, region, industry, min_score.

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 it is for 'Cross-provider API discovery' with filters by tag, provider, or artifact type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_providers' and 'find_tags'.

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 for API discovery but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any context about prerequisites or limitations.

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?

No annotations provided, and the description only states it finds artifacts. Does not disclose pagination behavior, output format, authentication needs, or if results are filtered by other parameters. The tool is likely a read operation, but no safety or side effects are mentioned.

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 with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded. The list of types is long but necessary for clarity.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits details about return type, pagination, and how query/filter parameters work. For a tool of this complexity, more context is needed.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It only explains the 'type' parameter by listing valid values. Other parameters (q, page, tags, limit, include, providers) have no description, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Find' and resource 'artifacts of one type'. Lists specific artifact types, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific categories like APIs or providers.

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?

Implies use for finding artifacts by type, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like find_apis or get_api. No guidance on 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.

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions browsing and sorting. It does not address pagination, default behaviors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, front-loading the main action and sorting capability. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness, though this is a structural strength.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on search behavior (q), pagination, result structure, and sorting options, making it incomplete for effective tool use.

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 0%. The description adds partial meaning for 'sort' (sort by provider/API count) but fails to explain 'q', 'page', or 'limit'. Given the low coverage, the description compensates insufficiently.

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 browses industry verticals, which aligns with the name and differentiates it from siblings like 'find_apis' or 'find_providers'. It also mentions sorting capability, adding specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the sibling tools. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Discover' without specifying read-only nature, pagination, or other traits.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action, but could benefit from additional structure (e.g., listing parameters or usage notes).

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?

With 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete—omitting pagination, sorting, combination logic, and return format.

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 only ~38% (5 of 13 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no further details on parameter usage or interactions.

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 finds providers by specified dimensions, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'find_apis' or 'find_artifacts'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists criteria, failing to provide context or exclusions.

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?

With no annotations, the description lacks details on pagination, ordering, or meaning of 'facet threshold' and 'trend', leaving behavioral aspects unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys purpose and key filters without unnecessary words.

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 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief; it does not clarify pagination, sort order, or advanced filters like facet and trend.

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 0%, and the description mentions filters (band, score range, trend, facet threshold) but does not explain individual parameters sufficiently.

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 returns a 'ranked ratings leaderboard' with specific filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools that search for different entities.

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 indicates use when needing a filtered ratings leaderboard, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. Only mentions sorting capability; does not state if read-only, auth needs, rate limits, pagination details, or error 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?

One sentence, concise, but lacks essential details. Every sentence should earn its place; this one is too sparse.

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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. Agent cannot reliably invoke or understand return values.

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 0%. Description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (q, page, sort, limit). Only hints that 'sort' relates to provider/API count, but no specifics on allowed values or how to use other parameters.

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 uses verb 'browse' and resource 'geographic regions'. It adds sorting capability by provider/API count. While 'browse' is somewhat vague, it clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_region' (singular) and other 'find_*' 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_region'. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions sorting criteria but not other behaviors like filtering (q), pagination (page, limit), or output structure. Does not clarify read-only nature.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. No unnecessary words.

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, no annotations, and four undocumented parameters, the description lacks essential details about input semantics and return values, making it incomplete for effective tool 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 0%, and description only partially addresses the 'sort' parameter by mentioning composite score, frequency, or breadth. No explanation for 'q', 'page', or 'limit' parameters.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('browse/rank') and resource ('tag taxonomy'), and specifies sorting dimensions. Distinguishes from sibling tools like find_apis and get_tag. However, could be more explicit about returning a list of tags.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_tag or other find_* tools. Missing context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that setting include=["content"] inlines artifact bodies, which is a behavioral detail, but does not state if the tool is read-only, any side effects, or authentication requirements. For a data retrieval tool, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence that packs the core purpose and a key parameter usage hint. No superfluous words, and it is front-loaded with the main action. It 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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the main use case and one parameter behavior. However, it omits explanation of the 'artifact_types' parameter and any return value details. With no annotations, more completeness would be helpful but is not severely lacking.

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 description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains 'aid' as provider:api-slug and 'include' as an optional array with 'content' to inline artifact bodies, but does not explain 'artifact_types'. This partial coverage adds value but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 full detail for a single API by its identifier (aid). The mention of 'set include=["content"] to inline artifact bodies' adds specific functionality. It is distinct from sibling tools like find_apis which are for search.

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 when you have a specific API identifier and need full details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the intent is clear enough for an AI to select it over search tools.

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?

With no annotations, the description should clarify it's a read operation and any side effects. It implies a read but doesn't confirm idempotency or data access implications.

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?

While short, the description is too terse, omitting essential information. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain the return format, ranking semantics, or any constraints. It is insufficient for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0% for the sole parameter 'slug.' The description adds no explanation of what 'slug' means or how to find it, leaving the agent with only the parameter name.

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 states it returns a single industry with ranked member providers, which gives a general idea. However, it doesn't use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' and it's somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like find_industries or get_provider. The description doesn't explain that this is for fetching a specific industry by slug.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'including its APIs and links' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The safety profile is unclear.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more structured to include parameter details.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the core purpose but lacks return value details or how to obtain the slug.

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 description does not explain the 'slug' parameter beyond its name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no value to the parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer the slug's 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves full details for one provider, including APIs and links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_providers (which searches) and get_api (which gets API details) by specifying a single provider's comprehensive data.

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 use when needing full details of a specific provider, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or context for selecting this over other tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a rating breakdown, but does not mention whether it is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent uninformed about important behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and content without unnecessary words.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat adequate for a simple retrieval operation. It lists the components of the rating breakdown but does not explain how to obtain the slug or any other context. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps in parameter understanding.

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 0% as the description does not reference the 'slug' parameter. With only one parameter, the description should explain what slug represents (e.g., unique identifier for a provider). The description implies it identifies a provider but lacks explicit details, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 returns a single provider's full rating breakdown including composite, band, trend, and six facets. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_ratings (which lists ratings) and get_rating_rubric (which gets the rubric) by specifying it's for one provider and includes the breakdown components.

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 for a single provider, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_ratings or get_provider. There is no mention of prerequisites 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.

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (rubric components) but lacks details on side effects, access requirements, or whether the data is static. Simple read operation typically has low risk, so adequate but not 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?

Single sentence covering purpose and content with no superfluous text. Could be more direct by starting with a verb, but still efficient.

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?

With no output schema and simple return, the description is adequate but lacks differentiation from sibling tools. It does not clarify that this rubric is global, not tied to a specific provider.

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?

Zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves the rating rubric with bands, facet weights, and trend thresholds, and its purpose is to help interpret scores. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_provider_rating by focusing on the generic rubric rather than a specific rating.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies use for score interpretation, but no when-not-to or context for preferring it over other get_* tools.

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?

No annotations provided; the description fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any behavioral traits beyond the minimal phrase.

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?

Extremely concise but at the expense of informativeness; under-specification outweighs brevity.

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 and sparse description, the tool is incomplete for proper invocation; the agent cannot infer return structure or data semantics.

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 explain the 'slug' parameter (e.g., region identifier), leaving it ambiguous.

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 'One region with its ranked member providers' vaguely suggests retrieving a region and its providers, but lacks a clear verb and does not distinguish from sibling tools like find_regions or get_api.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, such as find_regions for listing or get_provider for individual providers.

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?

The description discloses that the output includes a tag and its linked entities (providers, APIs, neighbor tags), which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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, short sentence that gets to the point. It is front-loaded with the key information (what the tool returns). However, it could be slightly expanded to add usage hints without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides minimal but sufficient context: it returns a tag and its linked data. However, it lacks details like how the slug parameter maps to the tag or whether the result is paginated. The sibling list suggests many related tools, so more differentiation would help.

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?

Only one parameter 'slug' is defined in the schema with no description. The tool description does not explain what 'slug' means or its expected format (e.g., URL-friendly identifier). This leaves the agent guessing about valid input.

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?

Description specifies it retrieves a single tag along with its linked providers, APIs, and neighbor tags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_tags (which likely lists tags) and get_api (retrieves a specific API). The verb is implied by the tool name 'get_tag'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where find_tags or other siblings would be more appropriate.

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