logue-vintage.com

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the entire body text and that the id may come from search results, but says nothing about page-length limits, truncation, or failure modes when a page is missing.

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 what is returned, then accepted input, then the accuracy-critical usage hint. No filler; each sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description is adequate for a single-parameter read tool, with the only real gap being no disambiguation from the sibling get_page.

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% and the id description already documents that a URL, path, or Japanese string is acceptable. The description restates the id source (search-result id or URL/path) without adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: it returns the full body text of a loaded page on logue-vintage.com. The site scoping is a concrete detail. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling get_page, which an agent cannot disambiguate from this text alone.

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 a clear when-to-use rule: verify prices, dates, conditions and terms by reading the body before answering. It also tells the agent where the id comes from (search results). No when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. get_page) is offered.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that this is a legacy alias and that the return shape differs from fetch, but it never says how the shape differs, which is the one behavioral detail an agent would actually need.

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, no waste, and the deprecation status plus the recommended alternative are front-loaded. Slightly verbose in restating the domain name twice, but structurally sound.

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 tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential deprecation context and the redirect to fetch. The only gap is the unspecified difference in return shape, which would help an agent decide whether the legacy format matters.

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% with a single url parameter already documented as accepting a URL or path (including Japanese text). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema 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?

States that this is the legacy version of a page-content reader and that it returns the page body like fetch but in a different shape. The verb+resource (read page body) is clear and it is distinguished from the fetch sibling. The phrase about being the 'previously named' function is slightly indirect but overall understandable.

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 tells the agent that this tool is kept only for existing integrations and that new usage should call fetch instead. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for, with the alternative 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=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: pagination of 50 per call, a limit ceiling of 200, and offset-based continuation. It does not state what happens past the end of the list or whether ordering is stable, which keeps it from a 5.

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 what the tool returns, then pagination mechanics, then when to use it. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: the site scope, the returned fields, the page size, and the paging cursor. Nothing needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 0% – neither parameter is described in the schema – so the description carries the burden and mostly does: limit is explained as page size with a max of 200 (default 50), and offset as the continuation cursor. Both parameters are given meaning beyond their bare integer types, though the description doesn't restate the defaults or minimums.

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 concrete verb and resource: it lists pages loaded on logue-vintage.com and says the return fields are title and URL. It hints at differentiation from the search siblings ('use it when you can't find what you're looking for even after searching') but never names them, so an agent still has to infer which sibling to pick.

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 clear usage context in two situations: browsing what pages exist, and falling back when a search fails to find something. That implicitly routes the agent away from search_pages/search, but the alternatives are not explicitly named or contrasted.

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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it searches only pages loaded from the site, excludes updates after loading, and instructs on fallback behavior. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover aspects like rate limits or result pagination.

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 front-loaded with its purpose and then proceeds through scope and fallback guidance. Each sentence has a clear role, and there is no redundant filler, though it is slightly lengthy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers scope, usage, and failure handling. The main gap is that it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_pages.

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%, and the schema itself describes the query parameter with an example. The description does not add syntax, format, or other meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb (search) and resource (pages loaded from logue-vintage.com), and notes that results include excerpts and URLs. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_pages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 context: 'if asked about logue-vintage.com, use this first,' and describes the scope limitation (only loaded pages, not the entire internet). It also provides fallback instructions (rephrase, then say not on site). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: it is a legacy/deprecated surface whose return shape differs from 'search'. It does not describe the return format concretely, but deprecation status is valuable 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the legacy status and ending with the redirect to 'search'. No filler, though the parenthetical repetition of the site name is slightly 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 deprecated redirect-style tool with a small two-parameter schema and no output schema, the essential information (what it does, why it still exists, and which sibling to use instead) is present. The only gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter.

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 50% (query documented, limit undocumented) and the description contributes nothing about either parameter. It does not compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter or clarify query syntax beyond the schema's example, so it falls below the baseline-3 case.

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 ('サイトの中を探す' / searches within the site) and clarifies it is the former-named version of a search feature, explicitly contrasting its return format with the sibling 'search'. Clear enough to distinguish, though the name alone ('search_pages') plus heavy reliance on the legacy framing means a fresh agent still has to infer the exact capability difference.

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 routes the agent: it is kept only for users already connected, and for new usage the agent should use 'search' instead. This is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-the-alternative statement naming the sibling by name.

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 the safe read-only, non-open-world profile. The description adds value beyond them by specifying the returned content (type, description, loaded page count, main pages), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not discuss pagination or freshness, but for a read-only overview that gap is minor.

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 return summary before the usage note. The duplicated domain in parentheses is mild redundancy but nothing is wasted.

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-param, no-output-schema tool with safety annotations already present, the description covers purpose, return content, and usage timing. It is essentially complete; only explicit sibling routing 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals the tool takes no input by framing it as a fixed-site lookup back to the hardcoded domain.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it returns an overview of a named site (logue-vintage.com), enumerating what the overview contains (type, description, page count, main pages). This clearly distinguishes it from page-level siblings like get_page and list_pages, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

"最初にサイトの全体像をつかみたいときに使います" gives a clear triggering condition — use first to grasp the site as a whole. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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