Agent-Readiness Audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Look up' and 'public' do imply a safe read-only operation, and 'among scored companies' hints that unscored domains may not have a rank, but it never states what happens for an unknown or unscored domain or whether any auth/rate limits apply.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler; every clause (index name, return value) 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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete since return shape need not be explained. The only real gap is handling of unscored/unknown domains, which is left implicit.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the 'domain' input and gives the 'stripe.com' example format. The description adds no format or normalization detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (a domain on the public Agent-Readiness Index) and names the return value (rank among scored companies). It is easy to distinguish from list_index and scan_site in spirit, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_index or scan_site (e.g., for domains not yet scored). The agent must infer that this is the lookup-only tool.

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 carries the behavioral burden. It adequately signals a public listing operation and optional filtering, but it omits pagination, ordering, authentication expectations, and rate-limit behavior. Because an output schema exists, return-value details are not required here.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted language. The core purpose and optional filter are conveyed immediately.

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 one-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is largely complete. Minor gaps remain around pagination/order and explicit sibling routing, but nothing prevents correct 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%, and the schema already explains that category is optional and gives 'Payments' as an example. The description restates optional category filtering but adds no semantics beyond the schema.

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 a clear verb and resource: listing companies on the public Agent-Readiness Index. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_index_rank and scan_site, but it does not explicitly differentiate those 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?

The phrase 'optionally filtered by category' implies how the one parameter can be used, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_index_rank or scan_site, nor 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the scan is free, that it applies to public sites only (an implicit limitation on inputs), and what comes back, but it omits rate limits, auth requirements, and how the teaser result is truncated relative to a full scan.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return summary. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence duplicates information an output schema already carries.

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 read-style tool with a full output schema, the definition covers the essential scope and result shape. The remaining gaps (synchronous vs async, teaser limits, failure behavior for non-public or unreachable URLs) are minor given the low 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 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents the url format and examples. The description adds only the 'public' constraint, which is marginal but consistent with the schema. 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?

The description states a concrete verb (run a scan) and resource (public site agent-readiness check) and describes the output shape. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings get_index_rank or list_index, though the subject matter is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 stated prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The word 'teaser' hints at a limited/preview variant of a fuller capability, but the description never says when this is the right choice versus a complete scan.

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