nowyourlink public Spotlights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: 'Does not bid or pay.' This clarifies there are no financial side effects, which is valuable context beyond the generic read-only annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the key non-side-effect behavior is stated directly.

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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what is being read and explicitly rules out bidding/paying, so nothing essential 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is strong enough.

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 uses the verb 'Read' with a specific resource: the currently displayed settled public Spotlight, and explicitly notes it includes labeled house advertisements. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_spotlight and list_spotlights by emphasizing 'currently displayed' and 'settled.'

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 conveys when to use this tool: when the agent needs the currently displayed settled public Spotlight. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'currently displayed' phrasing sets it apart from general get_spotlight or list_spotlights, giving clear contextual 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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns labeled house advertisements and that removed or missing days are unavailable, warning the agent about potential empty/error results. No contradiction with annotations.

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, no redundancy, and the core behavior is presented first. The availability limitation is placed second, which is an efficient and logical order.

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 single-parameter tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it reads, how it is scoped, what it includes, and a key failure/availability caveat.

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%, and the single 'day' parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but none is necessary given the schema already specifies the format and 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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one settled public Spotlight'), and the selection criterion ('by date'). It also clarifies that the result includes labeled house advertisements, which distinguishes the tool from generic listing or current-spotlight 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 'one settled public Spotlight by date' makes clear this is for reading a historical settled item, not the current spotlight or a list. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the context strongly implies when it should be used versus get_current_spotlight and list_spotlights.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering and explicit inclusion/exclusion rules for house and removed ads. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core behavior and immediately adds the key scoping details (ordering, inclusion, exclusion) without extraneous text. Every clause adds information.

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 paginated list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operation, ordering, and content filtering. It does not explicitly clarify pagination semantics or define 'settled,' but the schema and sibling names cover most of the remaining context.

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 the description does not explain limit or offset. The names and constraints make the parameters reasonably guessable, but the description itself adds no meaning, and there is no compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Browse') with a clear resource ('settled public Spotlights') and gives distinguishing scope: newest first, including labeled house advertisements and excluding removed ads. This makes it clearly distinct from the get_spotlight/get_current_spotlight 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 wording implies this is the list/browse tool for settled public Spotlights, which differentiates it from the get tools, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over a sibling or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by 'Browse' and 'settled public' rather than stated.

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 annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits or side effects, but it is consistent with the annotations.

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 with no unnecessary words or complexity. It is well-structured and easy to understand.

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?

The description is adequate for the tool's purpose, but it lacks any mention of return format or additional context about the documentation. Since the tool is straightforward and the sibling tools are unrelated, this is sufficient.

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 parameter 'path' has an enum of possible values, but no description is provided. The description does not explain the parameter or its purpose beyond the enum values, which are self-explanatory but lack explicit guidance.

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 reads nowyourlink's API usage, authentication, and pricing documentation. It specifies the resource and the action, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with spotlights.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_current_spotlight, get_spotlight, list_spotlights). It is implied that the tool is for documentation, but no direct guidance or contrast is provided.

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