ToolRank

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies almost nothing. It does not state what happens when the id is absent or invalid (error vs empty result), nor the return shape. For a simple read this is lower risk, but the disclosure is still essentially absent.

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 six-word sentence with the verb, resource, and key front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is barely sufficient: it establishes the lookup contract but omits failure behavior and how to obtain an id. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'id' identifies a catalog tool, which is more than the schema's bare string type gives, but it adds no format example or source for obtaining the id.

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 (catalog tool) with a clear scope qualifier ('single ... by id'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the list/search siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but an agent can tell it retrieves one item by key.

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 prerequisite that a valid id must already be known, and no routing instruction toward list_fresh or search_tools for discovery. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by id'.

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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not whether the result is sorted, bounded, or paginated, not whether omitting 'since' returns all tools, and not what the response shape looks like. For a read-only list tool the risk is low, but the disclosure is still thin.

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 short sentence with the filter condition front-loaded and no filler. It is terse but every word carries information, though the omission of default behavior is a small structural gap given the space available.

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 one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the no-argument case and the nature of the returned list. It leaves the agent guessing about default behavior and result ordering.

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 schema already states the parameter is an ISO date-time, so the description's 'updated after an ISO timestamp (optional)' mostly repeats structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs the verb 'List' with the resource 'tools' and adds the filter condition 'updated after an ISO timestamp', so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the siblings get_tool or search_tools.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over get_tool or search_tools, nor any note about what happens when 'since' is omitted. The only hint is the parenthetical '(optional)' on the parameter.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields (health, price_band, install snippet), but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication needs, ranking criteria, or rate limits.

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; purpose is front-loaded and return information follows. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with five parameters.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, and safety traits that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies the 'job' parameter but gives no meaning for auth, limit, budget, or runtime, and does not explain the budget enum values.

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 (Rank) and resource (MCP servers/APIs) scoped to a job, making the core action clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings get_tool or list_fresh, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explicit alternatives. The phrase 'for a job' implies a search context but does not tell an agent when to choose this over get_tool or list_fresh.

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