OpenFree

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the failure mode: a not-found error for unpublished or unknown slugs, which is genuinely useful for error handling.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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the core lookup behavior is front-loaded before the error caveat.

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, the description should say something about what comes back, and it does not (only that a tool is returned). The unaddressed locale parameter is also a gap, so the definition is adequate but incomplete for a two-parameter fetch.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies 'slug' as an exact identifier restricted to published tools, but the second parameter 'locale' (enum en/zh, default en) is never mentioned at all, leaving half the inputs unexplained.

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 ('Get') and resource ('published OpenFree tool') with a clear scope qualifier (published only, exact slug). This implicitly separates it from the list/search siblings, though it never names them.

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?

'By its exact slug' implies this is the lookup path when the identifier is already known, which contrasts with search_tools in spirit. However, the alternative is never named and no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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 the safe read-only, idempotent profile, so the description's job is to add context. It does so usefully by disclosing that only categories with published tools are returned and that usage counts are public, which tells the agent what will and will not appear. Ordering, pagination, and whether counts are global or locale-specific are not disclosed.

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 that covers purpose, scope, and return highlights without waste.

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 gives a partial view of return values (slugs, usage counts) and the published-tools filter, which helps since there is no output schema. However, it omits the only parameter's meaning, leaving a material gap for an agent that needs to decide whether to pass locale.

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 there is one parameter, locale, with enum values en/zh. The description never mentions locale or explains what it controls, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('List OpenFree categories') and adds meaningful scope ('with published tools') plus return content ('category slugs and public usage counts'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_tags by dealing in categories rather than tags, though it does not explicitly name 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?

Usage is implied: enumerate categories that have published tools. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_tools or list_tags, and no exclusions or prerequisites are 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?

Annotations already declare safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add real behavioral context: results are capped at 50, ranked by usage, limited to published tools, and counts are public. It also clarifies that `total` reflects all public tags, not just the 50 returned.

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 filler. The scope and ranking rule come first, and the clarification of `total` follows where it matters.

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, parameterless-in-practice read with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (slugs, usage counts, total) and the 50-item cap well. The only real hole is the undocumented locale parameter and any locale-dependent behavior.

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 single `locale` parameter (enum en/zh, default en) is never mentioned in the description. The agent cannot tell from any source whether locale changes the tag names, slugs, or counts returned.

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 ('List the 50 most-used OpenFree tags') and scopes it to published tools with slugs and public usage counts. It implicitly distinguishes tags from sibling resources like list_categories or search_tools, though it never names an alternative.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the sibling list_categories, which an agent could easily confuse with tag browsing. The only inference available is that this is a discovery/listing call, which the name already conveys.

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 non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: only 'published' tools are returned, results are paginated, and page size is capped at 25. It says nothing about ordering, relevance ranking, or how empty results behave.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the filtering/pagination constraints follow in priority 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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description leaves meaningful holes: the semantics of the required `q`, the purpose of `locale`, and whether tag and category combine or are mutually exclusive. Adequate to make a call, not adequate to make it confidently.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It successfully explains that tag/category are slugs and that limit is capped at 25 per page, but leaves the required `q` parameter's semantics entirely unaddressed and never mentions `locale` or `page` at all.

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+resource+scope: 'Search published free and open-source AI tools on OpenFree.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_tool (single item retrieval) and list_categories/list_tags (enumeration). It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the search-vs-enumerate distinction is inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Search ... Filter by category/tag slug', but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus list_categories or list_tags, nor any note on prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing itself.

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