Agent Revenue Auditor

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description does not contradict them. However, it also does not add any extra behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects beyond what the annotations provide, so it does not go above the baseline set by the annotations.

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, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the action verb 'Discover' and then lists the specific items in a clear, readable order. There is no unnecessary 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 that there is no output schema and no parameters, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns. It mentions the exact types of information (products, prices, endpoints) without requiring further explanation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100% and the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it does not introduce any ambiguity about inputs.

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 tool's purpose with the verb 'Discover' and specifies the exact resources it returns: paid website-intelligence products, USDC prices, and x402 purchase endpoints. This is specific and distinguishes it from typical list tools, even without explicit sibling comparison.

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 clear context on what the tool does, allowing an agent to infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like get_purchase_instructions or preflight_website, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not guideline.

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?

Despite annotations already indicating read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds explicit behavioral transparency by stating it never starts a purchase or bypasses payment. This reinforces the safety profile beyond the annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It immediately states the core function and then clarifies a key boundary, with no unnecessary wording.

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 provides sufficient context for a simple tool: it names the specific resource (checkout link and x endpoint) and the purpose (paid audit). It does not explain the output or the meaning of the product parameter, but given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature, it is reasonably complete.

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 description does not explain the meaning or implications of the 'product' parameter values (metadata, audit, history, competitors, agent-performance). While the enum values may be self-explanatory in context, the lack of any elaboration leaves room for ambiguity about what each product option entails.

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 tool's purpose: to get the official Apify Store checkout link and x endpoint for a paid audit. It explicitly distinguishes itself from initiating a purchase, making its role unambiguous.

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 specifies that it is for 'one paid audit' and clarifies that it never starts a purchase or bypasses payment, providing useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like discover_products or preflight_website, so guidance on when to prefer this tool is somewhat implicit.

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?

Description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false) and adds practical context that the check is free and verifies reachability/eligibility. No side effects are implied or hidden.

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, focused sentence conveys purpose, cost, timing, and criteria without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 sufficiently conveys the tool's core function and eligibility criteria. Since no output schema is provided, a brief statement of what the check returns could improve completeness, but the current wording implies a yes/no eligibility result.

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 only parameter, url, is fully covered by the schema with type and format. The description adds that the website must be public, but does not elaborate on expected URL variants or constraints; schema coverage is high, so baseline is appropriate.

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 the tool's verb ('Check'), resource ('website'), and specific purpose ('reachable and eligible before purchasing an audit'). It is readily distinguished from siblings like discover_products and get_purchase_instructions.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use the tool ('before purchasing an audit') and notes it is free. It does not name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the timing and eligibility context provide adequate guidance.

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