discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It describes what is returned but does not disclose side effects (none expected), rate limits, authorization needs, or if operation is idempotent. For a read operation, a 'readOnly' hint would add clarity.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value: verb, resource, identifier, and key return fields. No fluff 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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is workable but not fully self-sufficient. It lists returned fields, but does not state that the tool is read-only, nor does it confirm it returns only one listing. Agent could guess, but explicit completeness would be beneficial.

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% (0 out of 1 parameter described). The description mentions 'by id' but does not specify the format, origin, or constraints of the 'id' parameter. The schema only defines type 'string' with no description. The description should explain what constitutes a valid 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get full detail'), the resource ('listing'), the identifier ('by id'), and lists specific fields included (outbound url, creator, tags, popularity/recency signals). It distinguishes from siblings like index_stats and search_indie, which operate on collections or indices.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (index_stats, search_indie). It does not specify prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only describes return content but does not disclose whether the data is real-time, cached, requires authentication, or any side effects. For a simple read tool, this is minimal.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes return values (total listings, counts, top items). However, it lacks details on data freshness, pagination, or format, and does not contrast with sibling tools.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds value by explaining what the tool returns. This meets the baseline for no parameters.

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 it returns summary statistics about the independent-software index, including total listings, fresh/small counts, and top sources/languages/tags. It distinguishes from siblings like get_listing (specific listing) and search_indie (search). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'show'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_listing or search_indie. The purpose is implied as obtaining summary stats, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that buyUrl may be an affiliate link and clarifies the structure of results. It also explains the data source (indie software buried by mainstream engines), adding useful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by specific parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value; no 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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the key fields in results (buyUrl, url) and parameter usage. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected response, though the exact response format (e.g., array) is implied rather than explicit.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of small and fresh parameters beyond the schema, and provides example queries for the query parameter.

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?

Clearly states it searches for independent, small, and newly launched software, distinguishing from mainstream search engines. The purpose is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like get_listing (single listing) and index_stats (stats).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using small=true for buried results and fresh=true for recent launches, helping the agent decide when to apply filters. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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