StoryFan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by identifying the content as marketing/landing-page copy, which signals it is a high-level rather than authoritative technical source, but it says nothing about the response shape or length.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, with no redundant phrasing. Nothing is wasted and the parenthetical anchors the expected content precisely.

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 optional enum parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to decide and call correctly. The only small gap is that it does not say whether the answer arrives as prose or structured fields, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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% and the single optional 'locale' parameter has an enumerated, documented set of values, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing beyond that — it never mentions that the returned text language follows the locale argument.

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 concretely what the tool returns: the product's own explanation of what StoryFan is, does, and does not do, explicitly equating it with the storyfan.lol landing page. That is distinguishable from storyfan_download and storyfan_optout_info, though it does not explicitly draw the line against storyfan_plans, which could also be seen as 'what StoryFan offers'.

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 it should call this for a general overview of the service rather than for downloading or opting out. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. 'use storyfan_plans for pricing questions') is given.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the links are official and specific to App Store and Google Play, but does not describe the exact return format or whether links are static.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the two app stores whose links are provided, though it could mention that the tool returns the links themselves.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 that the tool provides official download links for StoryFan on the App Store and Google Play, matching the tool name. It is specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as storyfan_about or storyfan_plans.

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 implied: an agent should call this when a user needs official app download links. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus storyfan_about, storyfan_plans, or storyfan_optout_info, and no exclusions are 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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds the critical non-obvious trait: it only returns the page and does not submit the opt-out ('no lo envía'), preventing misuse as an action tool. It does not specify the exact return format (link vs. text), keeping 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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the key behavioral clarification immediately after.

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, read-only informational tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and its most important behavioral caveat. It could more precisely describe the return value (e.g., a URL or page text), which is the main remaining gap.

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%: the single locale parameter is fully documented with enum values and a default. The description adds no additional meaning about the locale parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific subject: how someone who saw a story requests not to appear on StoryFan, and that the tool returns the page for that request. It clearly differs from siblings (about, download, plans), though 'devuelve la página' leaves slight ambiguity between returning a URL versus page content.

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 implied by the phrasing 'Cómo pide no aparecer...', making it clear this is the tool to call for opt-out instructions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The phrase 'tal como salen en storyfan.lol' adds a useful trait: the content mirrors what is published on the live site, so it may change over time and follows the site's wording. Nothing is said about response shape, freshness, or caching.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the key resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in the other dimensions.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description states what is returned. However, with no output schema the agent has no idea of the response structure (plan tiers, price fields, currency, markup), and the description does not fill that gap.

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 is a single optional locale parameter with an enum and a documented default ('es'), giving 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about how locale affects the returned content (e.g. whether prices/currency differ), which is the one thing it could have contributed.

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 names a specific resource pair (planes y precios) and a specific source (storyfan.lol), so an agent knows it returns pricing/plan information rather than about, download, or opt-out data. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling tools, relying on the reader to infer the 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer it over storyfan_about or storyfan_optout_info, and no prerequisites. The only hint of context is 'tal como salen en storyfan.lol', which merely scopes the content source rather than guiding invocation.

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