Rate the quality of a previous ask_site answer from 1 (not useful) to 5 (excellent). Pass the request_id returned in structuredContent when available so the rating can be tied to the exact answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain that was queried. | |
| rating | Yes | Answer quality from 1 to 5. | |
| comment | No | Optional short explanation. | |
| request_id | No | request_id returned by ask_site, when available. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (rating) and the optional request_id detail, which adds context. However, it does not disclose whether the rating is stored, if it is reversible, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation-like operation.
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 sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, and the optional request_id guidance is concise. There is no redundancy or fluff.
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 rating tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to rate, the rating scale, and how to associate the rating with the correct answer. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing ask_site answer) or validation, but the high schema coverage compensates.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds a useful hint about request_id ('returned in structuredContent') that is not fully present in the schema. It does not add significant meaning for domain or rating, as those are already described in 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 clearly states the verb 'Rate' and the resource 'a previous ask_site answer', with a specific quality scale (1-5). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_site, list_sites, and refresh_site, all of which have different purposes.
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 provides clear context: it is used to rate a previous ask_site answer. It also instructs to pass request_id when available, which is a concrete usage guideline. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are obviously different, so the intended use is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: querying, listing, managing, rating, planning, refreshing, and submitting sites. Even similar operations like refresh_site and submit_site are clearly differentiated by whether the site is already indexed.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (ask_site, list_sites, submit_site, etc.), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
7 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused website indexing service. Each tool earns its place and together cover the core workflow of indexing, querying, refreshing, and managing sites.
The lifecycle for sites is mostly covered: submit (create), refresh (update), list/ask (read), but there is no delete/remove site operation. Minor gap that agents can work around by ignoring obsolete sites, but a delete tool would make it fully complete.