nowyourlink public Spotlights

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructive mutation; the description adds useful behavioral context: the job is synthetic and asynchronous, does not touch real data, and returns via 202-then-poll. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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, no redundancy, with the core action and purpose front-loaded. The pointer to get_sandbox_job 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 tool with output schema and annotations, the description tells the agent what it does, why it exists, and the follow-up call. 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description explains the semantics (same key -> same jobId). The description references the idempotency-key pattern, aligning with the schema, but adds no additional parameter-level detail. 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 ('Start') and resource ('synthetic asynchronous sandbox job'), and clarifies it exercises the Idempotency-Key and 202-then-poll pattern. It distinguishes from sibling get_* tools by framing it as the write-path sandbox.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it – to practice/validate the write API's idempotency and polling behavior without real side effects. It explicitly instructs to poll with get_sandbox_job, but it doesn't spell out when not to use it or name alternatives for read operations (though siblings are all reads).

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it targets the currently displayed 'settled' Spotlight, includes labeled house advertisements, and explicitly states it does not bid or pay. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the clarifying note about not bidding or paying is concise and valuable.

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 tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit sibling differentiation, but the tool is otherwise adequately described.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, includeHouseAds, and its schema description fully covers its behavior (100% schema description coverage). The prose adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already provides enough 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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'Read[s] the currently displayed settled public Spotlight' and further clarifies it includes labeled house advertisements. The phrase 'currently displayed' differentiates this from the sibling tools get_spotlight and list_spotlights, making the tool's scope clear.

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 the tool is for reading the current Spotlight and explicitly notes it does not bid or pay, which helps set expectations. However, it never names the sibling tools or states when to choose this over get_spotlight or list_spotlights, leaving some routing to inference.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals a critical behavioral trait: every well-formed jobId resolves as completed, so a result is not proof the key was created. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to interpret results correctly and goes well beyond what readOnlyHint or idempotentHint 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?

Two sentences carry the full meaning: the first states what is read and how the job is created, the second provides the crucial interpretive caveat. No filler or 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It even adds the non-obvious sandbox semantics that could otherwise mislead an agent into treating a synthetic result as real evidence.

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 jobId parameter is well-defined in the schema with pattern and origin. The description adds only the 'well-formed' framing and does not provide new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('status and synthetic result of a sandbox job') and ties it to create_sandbox_job, which clearly distinguishes it from the spotlight siblings. The caveat about completed results adds precision to what the tool actually does.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is for reading the result of a sandbox job that was created with create_sandbox_job. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list shows the spotlight tools are unrelated, so the intended context is reasonably clear.

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 meaningful result-set behavior beyond those annotations: newest-first ordering, inclusion of labeled house advertisements, and exclusion of removed ads. This goes beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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 no filler; every clause adds information about scope, ordering, or filtering. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 listing tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the content, ordering, and filters that matter most. It does not explain pagination beyond the cursor schema, but the schema and output schema fill that gap; the only notable omission is explicit guidance on when to use this vs the sibling get_* decriptions.

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 33%: only cursor has a description. The description does not compensate by explaining limit, offset, or cursor pagination behavior; it only mentions sorting. An agent must infer the roles of limit and offset from their names and the cursor description.

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') and a specific resource ('settled public Spotlights'), and adds sorting ('newest first') and inclusion/exclusion filters. Its plural collection scope clearly distinguishes it from the single-item sibling tools get_current_spotlight and get_spotlight.

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 browsing a filtered list of Spotlights, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over get_spotlight or get_current_spotlight. There are no stated alternatives or exclusion conditions, so usage guidance is left mostly to inference.

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