Huntertech.io

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: result ordering, plan-based caps on limit, and the plan gate on resolved history — all things the agent could not see in 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ordering before the plan constraints. The plan-limit detail partially duplicates the schema's limit description, a minor redundancy in otherwise tight prose.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and plan gating is disclosed. The one remaining gap is the relationship to the sibling get_vendor_incidents, which an agent would still have to guess at.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in structured form; the description largely restates the limit caps and only loosely gestures at timePeriod via 'plan window'. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get vendor incidents) plus scope (across all monitored vendors) and ordering (newest start first). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_vendor_incidents, leaving the agent to infer that the sibling handles per-vendor lookups.

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?

Plan-tier guidance is given (Guest/Free max 5, Standard+ can request resolved history), which frames eligibility context. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of get_vendor_incidents when...' routing, so selection between siblings is only implied.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data source path, that enterprise pricing is unavailable/custom, and that some plan features require a Huntertech sign-in, plus an OAuth endpoint for hosted clients. Behavioral disclosure of return scope and auth prerequisites is present and not repetitive of 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the final two sentences about signing in for included tools and OAuth endpoints for hosted clients drift from what this specific tool does, diluting focus for a zero-parameter catalog lookup.

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 simple zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: it is a public plan catalog, and enterprise pricing is custom. It could say slightly more about the shape of the returned catalog (plan tiers, prices, feature lists), but the gap is minor.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool takes no input to filter or scope the catalog.

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+resource: returns the public Huntertech plan catalog sourced from /pricing. The scope qualifiers (no checkout, coupons, quotes; enterprise is custom) make the boundary of what data comes back clear. Sibling tools are all incident/monitoring tools, so no explicit differentiation is needed.

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 checkout, coupons, or quotes' and 'Enterprise price is custom' give negative scoping, which implies this is a read-only informational lookup rather than a purchasing flow. But there is no explicit statement of when an agent should call this versus another tool, and no alternative is named.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that, namely plan-based result caps and the Standard+ gate on resolved history. It stops short of describing what happens for an unmonitored vendor or how timePeriod interacts when includeResolved is false.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then plan-tier constraints. Every sentence carries useful selection or invocation information with no filler.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema for return values, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: single-vendor scope, examples, and plan-based caps. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates plan-tier limits already documented on the limit, includeResolved, and timePeriod parameters in the schema, adding little semantic detail about formats, defaults, or interactions.

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 resource ('vendor incident and outage status') and pins the scope to 'one monitored vendor', with concrete examples (solarwinds, zscaler, cloudflare). That scope directly contrasts with the sibling get_all_vendor_incidents, so an agent can select between the single-vendor and all-vendor tools without opening either schema.

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?

It gives clear plan-tier guidance: Guest/Free return only recent ongoing/monitoring incidents capped at 5, while Standard+ can request resolved history within the plan window. It does not explicitly name get_all_vendor_incidents as the alternative when all vendors are wanted, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral constraint (only vendors with public incident data) but the enumeration of return fields duplicates the output schema, and pagination/ordering behavior is unstated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler. The middle sentence listing return fields is slightly redundant given the output schema exists, so it is not perfectly economical.

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?

A zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, so the description only needed to convey scope and chaining, both of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly indicates callers supply nothing and need only consume the returned 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 (List) and resource (monitored vendors) plus a scoping qualifier: only vendors with public incident data. It names get_vendor_incidents as the follow-up but does not distinguish itself from get_all_vendor_incidents, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 concrete chaining guidance ('Use id with get_vendor_incidents'), which tells the agent exactly how this tool fits into the workflow. It offers no when-not-to-use case or contrast with get_all_vendor_incidents, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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