HokAI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is static informational content and hints at temporal variation ('today's one-time price'), which is useful behavior context. It doesn't address caching or freshness guarantees, but for a zero-parameter read-only info tool the gap is small.

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?

Front-loaded with the content summary, then the usage sentence. It is efficient and readable; the line-broken wrapping and parenthetical example add slight bulk but every clause carries information.

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 must convey what is returned, and it does: price, listing contents, and the free badge route. Combined with the clear pre-submit usage framing, an agent has everything needed to call and use 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe.

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 (get) and the exact informational content returned: one-time price, what a listing includes, the free badge route. This distinguishes it from the sibling submit_listing, though it reads more as a content summary than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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 says 'Use this before submit_listing' and names the user question it answers ('how do I get my AI tool listed on HokAI?'). The alternative (submit_listing) and the condition that selects this tool are both 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Fetch' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or required permissions. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it could benefit from additional context without harming conciseness. It is not overly verbose, but it is also not optimally informative.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description does not elaborate on what the tools-tree JSON contains or why an agent would fetch it. More context would improve usability.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate per scoring rules.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'Hokai tools-tree JSON', but does not explain what a 'tools-tree' is or how it relates to sibling tools. It is clear in a minimal sense but lacks specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'scanner_status'. There is no context about the appropriate scenario for fetching the tools-tree.

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 must fully convey behavior. It only states 'Simple health check', which is vague. It does not disclose what response is returned (e.g., status code, object), nor any side effects or authorization requirements.

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 with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

While the tool is simple, the lack of output schema means the health check behavior is underspecified. The description could clarify expected output (e.g., 'returns status object' or 'returns OK if server is running'). Still adequate for a trivial tool, but room for improvement.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly omits them.

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 explicitly states it is a 'health check for the MCP server', providing a specific verb (check) and resource (MCP server). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_tools_tree', which lists 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. The description implies it is for checking server health, but does not mention alternatives or contexts where it should not be used. The sibling is unrelated, so no direct comparison is needed.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does: nothing is charged by the call, a payment link is returned that a PERSON must open, the listing is human-reviewed, refunds are available if the product isn't a fit, and payment does not affect rankings. These are precisely the side effects and policy details an agent must know before invoking.

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 core action is front-loaded and every sentence conveys policy or constraint. It is slightly long, with 'Nothing is charged by this call' partly restating the payment-link sentence, but the redundancy is defensible given the cost sensitivity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return, and it does (a payment link to be opened by a human). Combined with the consent, review, and refund details, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to instruct the user afterward.

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% (bare titles only), yet the Args block documents all four parameters: tool_url as the product's own site with an example, email as a vendor work email, and company/note as optional. The 'work email' constraint is meaning the schema cannot express.

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 and resource ('Start a HokAI directory listing') and enumerates the accepted product types (tool, model, agent, MCP server, skill, AI service). It is trivially distinguishable from the read-only siblings (get_listing_info, get_tools_tree, scanner_status) because it is the only submission/write tool.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Only call this when the product's owner or their team asked for it,' plus a data-quality instruction to use a real work email. This tells the agent both when to call and when not to, which is exactly the guidance a submission tool needs.

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