Wake site readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds that the payload is a single paragraph containing links to docs, API, MCP and signup, which is useful, but it does not say whether the links are static or whether the text changes over time.

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 with no filler; the parenthetical product definition is slightly dense but earns its place by anticipating the agent's need to know what Wake is. Nothing is redundant.

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 no-parameter read-only informational tool with annotations already covering safety, the description gives enough to know what comes back and roughly why to call it. Only the relationship to wake_check_site is left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is fully closed (additionalProperties=false) and consistent with a no-arg informational call.

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 concrete deliverable: one paragraph explaining Wake and what it offers (agent experience observability + agent engine optimisation), plus links to docs, API, MCP and signup. That is specific enough to predict the response, though the verb ('returns') is implicit and the sibling wake_check_site is not referenced.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is orientation/introduction content to read when it needs to understand the product. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of how this differs from the sibling wake_check_site.

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?

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses what is fetched, that only structural signals are retained ('never page bodies'), and that no account is required — privacy and auth facts the annotations do not convey. Minor tension: annotations set openWorldHint=false while probing arbitrary public hosts is arguably external, though this is a judgement call rather than a direct contradiction.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the probe and its outputs, the second covers input shape, data handling, and auth. Nothing is repeated and the core action comes first.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is inspected, what is returned, what is retained, and that no auth is needed. An agent has everything required to decide to call it and what to expect back.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but 'Input is a hostname only' usefully reinforces that no scheme or path belongs in the value, which the schema's example alone leaves ambiguous. It does not add syntax or validation detail beyond that.

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?

Names a specific verb (probe) and resource (a public hostname), and enumerates exactly what gets inspected: homepage, robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap, agent card. The stated output (scores out of 100, recommendations, publish-ready llms.txt/robots files) makes it unmistakably different from the only sibling, wake_about.

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 scopes the call ('Input is a hostname only', 'No account needed') but never states when to reach for this tool versus an alternative or when it should not be used. With a single, unrelated sibling the risk of misrouting is low, but the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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