Online Web Directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are crowd observations rather than instructions, and manifests are owner_declared and "never a verified fact" — a trust caveat an agent needs before acting on the data.

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 precondition is front-loaded in the first clause and the rest is dense but purposeful, with no filler sentences. The field enumeration is somewhat list-heavy but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the response contains.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: posture, challenge, JS requirement, rate limit, machine interface, derived strategy, plus the conditional manifest field. The only real gap is that per-field shapes and freshness/confidence of the crowd data are not described.

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%, so host, agent_token and client_class are already fully documented in the schema, including quota implications and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 (look up) and resource (a host's access posture) and enumerates the concrete fields returned: bot challenge, JavaScript requirement, rate limit, machine interface, fetch strategy. The read-only lookup nature separates it from the sibling report_observation, though the description never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

"Before fetching a website" gives a clear precondition that tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It does not name report_observation as the alternative or state when not to call it, so the guidance stops short of explicit routing.

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 only give readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds what those hints cannot: the operation is free/never charged, a key must be registered first, duplicates (same key, host, kind, client and time) are rejected rather than double counted, and a fact is only verified once three independent keys agree. That is substantial behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 purpose, then prerequisites, then duplicate/verification semantics, then the return shape — a sensible information hierarchy with little filler. It is delivered as one dense paragraph, so the many distinct facts (cost, registration, dedup, verification, returns) could be broken up, but no sentence 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 7-required-parameter, signature-authenticated write tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite (registered key), the dedup rule, the verification threshold, the cost, and the exact response shape. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing, though reporting-side rate limits are not mentioned.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds cross-parameter meaning the schema does not state: the dedup tuple that determines rejection (key, host, kind, client, observed_at) and the rule that value must come from the fixed vocabulary for the chosen kind.

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 gives a precise verb plus resource ('report one thing you actually observed' about a fetched website) and even pins the unit of work: 'One call is one fact (kind plus value)... send one call per kind you saw.' That is far above a restatement of the name. It never references the sibling lookup_origin, so the only thing separating a 4 from a 5 is sibling differentiation.

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?

Timing and mechanics are explicit: use it 'after fetching a website,' send one call per kind, and register a key first. It gives a concrete registration path. It stops short of naming lookup_origin as the read-side alternative or stating when not to report.

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