AIsa Sales

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint annotations: the call is free, it requires the Authorization header, and it discloses result semantics ('ok is true only when the balance was read; otherwise each entry of errors says what to do in next_step'). That tells an agent how to interpret partial failure, which annotations cannot convey.

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 the agent gets, followed by cost/auth, then call triggers, then result interpretation. No sentence is redundant and none could be dropped without losing 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the remaining gaps: cost, auth requirement, invocation triggers, and the ok/errors/next_step contract. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret 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 the description has nothing parameter-level to compensate for, and the schema is fully covered. A 4 rather than 5 reflects that it adds no input-syntax detail, though none is possible here.

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 concrete resource set (identity/key, account balance, Go-to-Market wallet, usage over 1/7/30 days) rather than restating the name. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all Reddit, batch, or search tools. An agent knows exactly what it will learn by calling it.

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?

Explicit triggering conditions are given: 'Call it to verify a new connection or to explain a 402.' That is a strong when-to-use statement. It stops short of 5 because it names no alternative tool or a when-not condition, though the sibling list offers no obvious competing diagnostic.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not required to restate it. It adds genuine operational context: the batch_use prohibition, exact-name/prefix requirements, and session reuse semantics. It does not cover failure handling when names are invalid, keeping it below 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and size limit, and every sentence carries workflow value. The session_id sentence duplicates the schema's own parameter description, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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 read-only batch retrieval tool with an output schema, the description supplies the orchestration context an agent needs (source of names, next steps, session handling) without needing to explain return values. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by constraining names to those returned by search and warning against a client prefix such as mcp__aisa__, which is not encoded in the schema.

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 ('Retrieve schemas for 1 to 20 exact tool names') and pins the source of those names to search. This clearly separates it from siblings like search (finds tools), batch_quote, and batch_use.

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 sequences the workflow: build arguments from successful schemas, then call batch_quote, and 'Do not call batch_use yet.' This is an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use instruction naming the alternative 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?

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining that quotes are price observations rather than authorization grants, and precisely delimiting what auto_execute_eligible does and does not waive (user prohibition, narrower scope, tighter budget). It also guarantees no execution fallback, which is the key behavioral risk for this tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry distinct rules (no fallback, eligibility limits, naming, session reuse). It is on the long side and the argument-shape constraint is stated twice in spirit, but little is truly 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't required, yet the description still flags the two response fields that matter for a downstream decision. Combined with session and naming guidance, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

At 67% schema coverage the schema already documents each parameter, so the description earns credit only for added meaning: exact-name rules for 'tool', session_id reuse semantics, and the 1-to-20 argument-shape parallel with batch_use. It doesn't clarify search_id beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Obtain AIsaServices cost quotes for 1 to 20 published tools') plus the crucial scope qualifier 'without executing them.' It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling batch_use, which executes rather than quotes.

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 names the parallel sibling ('Same input as batch_use') and draws the boundary ('Never falls back to execution'). It also gives operational conditions: use names exactly as search returns them, strip any mcp__aisa__ prefix, and reuse session_id from Search for the task.

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 cover mutability, destructiveness, and open-world behavior. The description adds critical business logic: billable calls, quote dependency, the meaning of auto_execute_eligible (waives only cost confirmation, not user prohibitions), and no silent retry. It doesn't detail rate limits or return format, but with an output schema present, that's acceptable.

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 dense and front-loads the cost warning, but it packs many separate instructions into one block, making it less scannable. Some sentences like 'A missing or failed quote is not free' add value, but the overall flow could be better structured.

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 destructive, open-world annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions and behavioral constraints. It could mention error handling or partial failure behavior, but the core guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 67%, and the description adds important semantics: tool names must be exact without client prefix, session_id reuse guidance, and 1-20 call limit. It doesn't explain search_id, but the schema description for search_id is already clear enough.

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 the verb and resource: 'Execute 1 to 20 independent published-tool calls', and the title matches. It distinguishes itself from batch_quote by requiring a quote first, but doesn't explicitly contrast with the singular 'use' sibling, though that's implied by 'batch'.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions: only after a successful batch_quote with auto_execute_eligible=true or explicit user authorization. It also states re-quote conditions and prohibits silent retries, leaving little ambiguity.

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 cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds two genuinely useful facts not in annotations: the master API key requirement and the per-request price. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about rate limits or failure modes for a privileged read.

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 operative text is two front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The embedded pricing HTML block is boilerplate rather than explanatory content, which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 values need not be described, and the description covers auth and cost. What is missing is routing context against the many sibling account tools, which is the main gap for an agent deciding whether to call this one.

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% with a single documented 'Account ID' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond it.

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 ('View an account by ID'), which clearly separates it from the write siblings like patch_apollo_accounts_account_id and post_apollo_accounts_search. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops 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?

The only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires a master API key'. There is no indication of when to use this versus post_apollo_accounts_search or the other account-related siblings, and no exclusions or conditions.

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, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious 'Requires a master API key' constraint, which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it omits any rate-limit or pagination notes.

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 functional content is front-loaded in one short sentence. The mandated pricing block inflates the text but is boilerplate inject rather than author prose, so it does not materially hurt structure.

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 an output schema carrying return-value detail and no input parameters, the description only needs to cover purpose, auth, and scope. Purpose and auth are present; the one real gap is sibling differentiation, which is minor for such a simple read tool.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless schema is 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List account stages'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_apollo_contact_stages and get_apollo_opportunity_stages, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though three near-identical stage-listing siblings exist. The agent must infer selection criteria from tool names.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context the annotations do not: the master API key authorization requirement and the per-request cost of $0.012 for successful calls, both of which affect whether an agent should call it.

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 operative content is front-loaded in two short sentences with zero waste. The embedded pricing comment block is boilerplate policy noise rather than tool guidance, but it is clearly delimited and does not obscure the primary instruction.

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 values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the missing auth and cost context. For a one-parameter lookup tool this is close to complete, with only the sibling-routing guidance 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?

There is a single required parameter (contact_id) documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. "by ID" merely restates the parameter in prose and adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema's "Contact ID" description.

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?

"View a contact by ID" states a specific verb and resource, and the identifier-based lookup is unambiguous. However, the title ("Update or View Contact") contradicts the read-only framing and the description never distinguishes this tool from the sibling patch_apollo_contacts_contact_id, which is the write path for the same resource.

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?

The description implies the natural usage (direct lookup by a known ID) and states the master API key prerequisite, which is a real gate. But it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance versus siblings such as post_apollo_contacts_search (find by criteria) or patch_apollo_contacts_contact_id (modify), so routing relies on inference.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful non-annotation fact (master API key requirement) and a pricing note, but nothing about rate limits, pagination, or scope of the returned stages.

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 functional sentence is short and front-loaded, with the auth requirement immediately following. The injected pricing block adds bulk but is required boilerplate rather than author bloat.

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 values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. The auth requirement is stated; the only real omission is disambiguation from the sibling stage-listing tools.

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 adds nothing parameter-related, but none is needed since the schema is empty.

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 clear verb+resource (list contact stages), so an agent knows what it retrieves. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings get_apollo_account_stages and get_apollo_opportunity_stages, which is exactly the ambiguity that matters for selection here.

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?

"Requires a master API key" is a genuine precondition, which is more than many definitions offer. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over the account/opportunity stage siblings, nor any exclusion or context for use.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one piece of non-annotation context, the master API key requirement, but says nothing about pagination, filtering, or result scope. Modest added value beyond the structured hints.

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 operative description is a single efficient sentence with the purpose front-loaded. The appended pricing comment block is injected boilerplate that adds length without aiding tool selection, which slightly dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and rich annotations cover the behavioral profile. For a zero-parameter read tool, stating purpose plus the auth requirement is sufficient, though a hint about result scope (e.g., all accounts vs. paged) would round it out.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter syntax or defaults are needed.

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 a list of email accounts.' An agent can immediately tell this is a read that lists email accounts. However, there are no sibling tools with overlapping naming (no other 'email_accounts' tool), so no explicit differentiation is offered or 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?

The description supplies a prerequisite ('Requires a master API key') but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the plural 'list' framing.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false. The description still adds two pieces of non-annotation context an agent needs: it requires a master API key, and it costs $0.012 per successful request, which affects invocation decisions.

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 functional sentence is short and front-loaded, with the auth requirement following immediately. The embedded pricing comment block is boilerplate that consumes roughly half the text but is at least clearly demarcated.

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 values need not be explained, and the single-parameter read operation is otherwise straightforward. Still, the description never characterizes the scope of 'stats' or positions the tool against its emailer siblings, leaving a gap for an agent choosing among many get_/post_ apollo tools.

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% with a single, fully-documented 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'specific outreach email' adds only light framing and no format, source, or ID-resolution guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('Check email stats for a specific outreach email'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_apollo_emailer_messages_search or explain what 'stats' actually covers, and the tool name's 'activities' is not reflected in the description.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite several emailer-related siblings. The only conditional information is the auth prerequisite ('Requires a master API key').

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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the master-API-key auth requirement and a per-request price disclosure, which are real additions, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or ordering despite eight list/filter parameters.

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 short sentences, front-loaded, with the auth constraint stated immediately. The injected pricing comment block is boilerplate rather than substance, but it is clearly delimited and does not obscure 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for an eight-filter search over a domain-specific resource, the description omits what the results represent, default paging behavior, and how to choose this tool over sibling campaign/message endpoints.

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 eight optional parameters (page, per_page, user_ids, emailer_campaign_ids, emailer_message_stats, not_emailer_campaign_ids, email_account_id_and_aliases, emailer_message_reply_classes) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or combined-filter semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 verb+resource ("Search for outreach emails"), but it largely restates the title and never clarifies what an "outreach email" is (emailer messages within a sequence) or how this differs from sibling search tools such as post_apollo_emailer_campaigns_search or get_apollo_emailer_messages_id_activities. Purpose is discernible but vague at the message-vs-campaign level.

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 when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling search tools. The only contextual note is an authentication prerequisite ("Requires a master API key"), which is useful but is not usage guidance.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the master API key requirement, which is useful context, but it does not describe field scope, listing behavior, or how it differs from the sibling create/typed-field tools.

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 useful content is front-loaded in two short sentences, and the pricing block is boilerplate rather than explanation. It is appropriately sized overall, though the HTML pricing comment is noise for tool selection.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and is covered by annotations, so the description is close to sufficient. However, it omits sibling routing and leaves the title's 'Create a Custom Field' claim unresolved, which could confuse an agent choosing between get_apollo_fields and post_apollo_fields.

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, so the schema already fully defines the call shape and no parameter semantics are needed. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description adds no parameter detail but does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get a list of fields.' It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings such as post_apollo_fields or get_apollo_typed_custom_fields. The title's '+ Create a Custom Field' also introduces ambiguity that the description itself does not resolve.

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?

The only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires a master API key.' There is no explanation of when to use this tool versus siblings like post_apollo_fields for creation or get_apollo_typed_custom_fields for typed custom fields.

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 establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful operational constraint not present in structured data: a master API key is required. It stops short of noting rate limits or result-size behavior, but for a read-only lookup this is solid added value.

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 functional content is a single front-loaded sentence with the auth caveat immediately after, which is efficient. The injected pricing block adds length that does not help tool selection, though it is an appended artifact rather than authored 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and with zero parameters the schema burden is nil. Purpose plus the master-key requirement covers what an agent needs to invoke this correctly; only when-to-use routing to siblings 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming the call is unfiltered. No syntax or format detail is needed.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Get a list of all lists (labels)") and the parenthetical disambiguates that 'labels' and 'lists' are the same object. It is clear enough to act on, though the phrasing is slightly circular and it never contrasts itself with any sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives; the only conditional statement is an auth prerequisite ("Requires a master API key"). The agent must infer the use case (discovering label/list IDs) entirely on its own.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation fact — a master API key is required — plus pricing context, but omits the behavioral trap that unfiltered calls fail with HTTP 400.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted prose; the auth requirement is stated immediately. The injected pricing comment block adds bulk but is boilerplate rather than authored content.

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 values need no explanation, and the schema carries the filter requirement. Still, for a 10-parameter retrieval endpoint with several near-identical siblings, the description is thin — it never mentions filtering, pagination, or how it differs from neighboring search tools.

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% across all 10 parameters, so the schema already documents each filter and the at-least-one-filter rule. The description contributes no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a list of notes'), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the many other Apollo list/retrieval siblings (e.g. get_apollo_emailer_messages_search, get_apollo_users_search), so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would pick this one.

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 alternatives, and no hint about the most important usage constraint: that at least one filter argument is required. The only guidance an agent gets is buried in the schema, not the description.

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, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the master-API-key requirement, which is useful operational context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about rate limits, error behavior, or the fact that the title ('View or Update Deal') misleadingly suggests write capability.

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 purpose and auth requirement are front-loaded in a single tight sentence, which is good. The pricing boilerplate that follows does not help an agent select or invoke the tool and is mildly noisy, but it is delimited and clearly ancillary.

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 one-parameter read-by-ID tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the agent needs: what it fetches and the auth prerequisite. Return value details are correctly left to the output schema; only the routing vs. sibling tools is unaddressed.

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% with a single opportunity_id parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'by ID' in the description adds no format, encoding, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: 'View a deal (opportunity) by ID,' which maps cleanly to the get_apollo_opportunities_opportunity_id name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_apollo_opportunities_search or get_apollo_opportunities_opportunity_id's update sibling, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 provides the prerequisite 'Requires a master API key,' which tells the agent an auth condition must be met before calling. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this single-record fetch vs. get_apollo_opportunities_search or when to use the patch sibling for updating.

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, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'Requires a master API key' — which is an auth requirement not present in the annotations, but it discloses nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or why the tool is named 'search' when it claims to return all deals.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded, but the injected aisa-pricing boilerplate roughly doubles the length with content irrelevant to tool selection. The description is not bloated by the author's own prose, but the effective payload carries dead weight.

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 rich annotations and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers the auth requirement. However, for a 'search'-named list endpoint over deals, it omits any hint of scope (all deals in the workspace?), paging expectations, or filtering limits, leaving gaps an agent must discover by trial.

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 page, per_page, and sort_by_field are already documented in the schema. The description adds no paging or sort semantics of its own, 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 ('List all deals (opportunities)'), which distinguishes it from the single-deal sibling get_apollo_opportunities_opportunity_id and from the write sibling post_apollo_opportunities. It does not call out the 'search' nature implied by its name or name any alternative explicitly, so it stops 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?

The description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites beyond the API key, and no routing to alternatives such as the opportunity-id getter or the account/contact search siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of context — the master API key requirement — but says nothing about scope of the returned stage list or account/workspace dependency.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but the embedded aisa-pricing block is boilerplate noise that adds length without helping tool selection.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, annotations cover the safety semantics, and there are no parameters. Purpose plus the auth prerequisite is close to sufficient for a simple read-only list tool.

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 nothing for the description to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool 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 ('List deal stages') and disambiguates the term with the parenthetical '(opportunity stages)', which helps separate it from the nearby account/contact stage tools. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from get_apollo_account_stages or get_apollo_contact_stages.

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?

The only guidance is the auth prerequisite ('Requires a master API key'). There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling stage-listing tools or the opportunity search/get tools, so selection is left to inference.

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, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the chaining contract that get_apollo_organizations_id consumes the id this call returns, plus billing context. The return-field enumeration is largely redundant with the output schema, 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then alternatives, then chaining guidance. Slightly padded by the long list of return fields that the output schema already defines, plus an injected pricing block, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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?

Covers what it does, when to use it, its two alternatives, and the id hand-off to the detail sibling. With an output schema present, return values need not be documented, and nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the single-parameter contract and adds a caveat beyond the schema ('must be the bare domain (apple.com), not a full URL'), which sharpens the format requirement rather than merely restating it.

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 ('Enrich one company by domain'), and explicitly names the siblings it is not (post_apollo_organizations_bulk_enrich, get_apollo_organizations_id). An agent can select it without opening any 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?

Gives explicit routing: 'Use it as the entry point when all you have is a domain,' bulk for 'several domains at once,' and get_apollo_organizations_id for 'the full record including funding and technology detail.' Conditions for choosing alternatives are all spelled out.

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, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful substance by contrasting the payload with enrichment ('everything enrichment returns plus the deeper fields') and by disclosing usage-based billing. It stops short of rate limits or quota behavior, but that is a minor gap against the annotation coverage.

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 substantive content is two tight sentences with the id-first constraint front-loaded before the supporting detail. Only the auto-injected pricing block bulks it out, so the prose itself earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the return shape need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains — how to get the id, what extra fields to expect, and that domains are unsupported — is all supplied, so nothing needed for a correct call 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 100% and the single parameter is documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying the identifier's origin and warning that a domain will not work, which materially reduces the chance of a wrong-value call.

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 — the complete Apollo record for one company — and immediately scopes it to being looked up by Apollo organization id rather than domain. That scoping distinguishes it cleanly from the enrichment and search siblings, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to obtain the required id (via get_apollo_organizations_enrich or post_apollo_mixed_companies_search) and states the exclusion plainly: 'this endpoint cannot take a domain.' Both the positive path and the anti-pattern are covered.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the data-source disclosure: it reads Apollo's job board, not the company's careers page, so absence of postings is not proof the company isn't hiring. That is a genuinely useful caveat beyond the annotations, though return format and pagination behavior are left to the output schema.

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 core purpose, followed by payload contents, the sourcing prerequisite, and the honesty caveat in a compact block. The appended pricing blockquote is boilerplate rather than tool guidance, but it is clearly demarcated and does not obscure the useful text.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose, id source, and the interpretive limitation well. Remaining gaps are minor, e.g. no note on pagination limits or how many postings to expect.

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 page, per_page and organization_id are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds a hint about where to source organization_id, though it points at get_apollo_organizations_enrich while the schema's own organization_id description says to use the Organization Search endpoint, a minor inconsistency rather than added clarity.

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 ('Live job postings for one company, by Apollo organization id') and enumerates what each posting carries (title, location, posted date, source URL). An agent can distinguish this from sibling organization tools like get_apollo_organizations_id and get_apollo_organizations_enrich without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Get the organization id from get_apollo_organizations_enrich first') and frames the use case as a hiring signal. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use or name a competing sibling, but the workflow context is clear.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the master API key requirement and per-request pricing, which an agent would not learn from annotations or schema alone.

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 authored content is two short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The pricing block is boilerplate disclosure rather than tool prose, but it does consume roughly half the visible text.

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 values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents all 12 optional filters. The gaps are the absence of any usage routing among the many search siblings and no note on pagination semantics, which matters for a 12-param search endpoint.

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?

All 12 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), including value formats like YYYY-MM-DD and seconds for durations, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but offers no extra value.

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?

"Search calls" gives a specific verb (search) and resource (phone calls), which distinguishes it from write siblings like post_apollo_phone_calls and put_apollo_phone_calls_id. However, it does not differentiate from other search siblings (e.g., get_apollo_emailer_messages_search, post_apollo_tasks_search) or clarify the scope of what is searchable.

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?

The only guidance is the prerequisite "Requires a master API key." There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no description of the searchable context (e.g., logged calls in the Apollo account).

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 establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful constraint beyond annotations: the operation requires a master API key, which affects whether an agent can call it at all.

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 operative content is two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the auth prerequisite immediately after. The injected pricing comment block is boilerplate noise that pads the text but is not under the tool author's control.

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 tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and the key auth gate. It falls short only on clarifying what 'typed' means versus the sibling fields endpoint.

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, which sets the baseline at 4 per the rubric, and the empty schema means there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. The description rightly spends no words on arguments.

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 a list of all custom fields'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as get_apollo_fields or get_apollo_labels, and the 'typed' qualifier in the tool name is left unexplained.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over get_apollo_fields or the other field/label endpoints. The only clause present ('Requires a master API key') is a prerequisite, not a usage condition or alternative comparison.

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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the master API key authorization requirement — but says nothing about pagination defaults, rate limits, or result size, and an output schema exists so return shape is already covered.

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 tool-authored sentence is one line and front-loads the verb and the auth requirement. That said, the majority of the visible description text is an injected pricing block rather than content that helps an agent select or call the tool.

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 2-optional-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, a short description is defensible. Still missing are any statement of what objects are returned, whether filters are supported, and how pagination terminates — gaps that matter given the crowded sibling namespace.

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%: both 'page' and 'per_page' are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema carries the full load.

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 verb+resource ('Get a list of users') is stated, but it is generic and gives no sense of what a 'user' is in this API or how this differs from the ~30 sibling search endpoints (contacts, accounts, opportunities). Despite the name ending in '_search', the description never mentions searching, filtering, or querying, so an agent cannot tell how it is distinguished from the other list-style 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?

'Requires a master API key' is a prerequisite, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to call this versus the many sibling search tools, no exclusion conditions, and no mention of pagination strategy or result scope.

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, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The pricing block does add genuinely useful non-schema context (a $0.225 default request estimate and a $0.075/credit unit rate), which is a real cost disclosure, but the description says nothing about what the call returns, its coverage, or any rate/pagination 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 text is short, but it is not concise in the useful sense: it is boilerplate that occupies the entire description while omitting any functional content, and it leads with raw HTML comment tags rather than a purpose statement. Every sentence is about pricing rather than about the tool.

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 10-parameter tool with 10% schema coverage, an output schema present, and a crowded sibling namespace, the description is functionally empty — an agent cannot determine what data is returned or how to scope the request. Cost information is present, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 10% across 10 parameters (4 required), so the schema leaves nearly everything undocumented. The description mentions no parameter at all — not domain, date range, limit/offset, web_source, traffic_source, or main_domain_only — and therefore compensates for none of the coverage gap.

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 contains no statement of what the tool does; it is entirely a pricing banner wrapped in HTML comment markers. Only the name and title ('Ad Networks') hint at the resource, and the description never says it returns ad-network data for a domain, nor distinguishes it from siblings like get_similarweb_ppc_spend or get_similarweb_marketing_channel_sources_legacy.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The only conditional content is about billing, not about selecting this tool over the many sibling SimilarWeb endpoints.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description does add non-obvious cost behavior (usage-based billing, $0.075 per similarweb_credit, estimate not final), which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call. However it discloses nothing about the read operation itself, result volume, or limits beyond cost.

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 text is short, but the pricing block is the whole description rather than a supporting note, so there is no purpose statement to front-load. The comment markers make it read as machine-injected boilerplate rather than an intentional tool definition.

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 9-parameter, 5-required analytics tool with 11% schema coverage, no output schema, and an open-world hint needs a description carrying the full functional burden. Instead the description covers only billing, leaving purpose, usage, and parameter meaning completely unaddressed.

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 only 11% across 9 parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. Required fields such as keywords (comma-delimited, max 20), start_date, end_date, granularity, and limit are left entirely to the bare schema, with no format or constraint explanation added.

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 never states what the tool does. Its entire content is a pricing boilerplate block ('Usage-based billing; Default request estimate: $1.275 USD...'), with no verb or resource describing keyword analysis. An agent cannot tell from this text that the tool returns keyword overview metrics, nor distinguish it from get_similarweb_keywords or get_similarweb_keyword_competitors.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. No mention of keyword sets, date ranges, or the sibling keyword tools. The only actionable statement is a cost estimate.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a templated pricing estimate ($0.075/credit) — marginally useful cost context, but no operational behavior about the segment-analysis call itself (e.g., what the segment ID requirement implies, latency, or result shape).

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?

It is short, but every sentence is boilerplate pricing metadata that does not earn its place against the tool's actual purpose. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not conciseness.

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 9-parameter, 5-required analytical tool with no output schema and 22% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate — it omits purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and return expectations entirely.

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 only 22% and the description adds nothing about the 9 parameters — not the comma-delimited metrics delimiter, not the date range semantics, not granularity or main_domain_only. The one genuinely tricky parameter (segment ID) is documented only in the schema, not the description.

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 contains no statement of purpose at all — it is exclusively a pricing/billing block. The title 'Segments Marketing Channels' hints at the domain, but the description itself never says what the tool does, and it cannot be distinguished from sibling segment/keyword/website analyst tools from the description text.

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 prerequisites, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative sibling tool. The agent receives zero routing information from the description.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only pricing info, and it conspicuously omits the account-dependent segment requirement that the schema hints at.

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 text is short but composed entirely of HTML-commented pricing metadata, which is not useful content for tool selection. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 9-parameter tool with a 22%-covered schema, the description should explain purpose, required inputs, and how it differs from the near-identical sibling. Instead it provides only a price estimate, so an agent lacks the information needed to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is only 22% and 9 parameters (5 required) are mostly undocumented – metrics, start_date, end_date, granularity, and format have no descriptions at all. The description does nothing to compensate, leaving the agent to guess at the required date and metric formats.

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?

Despite the title 'Segments Analysis', the description text contains only pricing boilerplate and never states what the tool actually does. Nothing in the body distinguishes it from the sibling segment-analysis tools (get_similarweb_apis_v1_similarweb_segment_analysi_6349fe) or from the website/keyword analysis tools, so an agent cannot select it from the description 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?

No usage guidance whatsoever – no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as the closely named sibling segment tool. The only content is a billing disclaimer.

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/openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine billing context ($0.075 per similarweb_credit, ~$0.375 per request, account-specific settlement), but discloses nothing about the operation itself: no return shape, no granularity/date-range behavior, no explanation of the limit cap.

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?

It is short and cleanly delimited, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: the only sentence present is pricing metadata that does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 9-parameter analytical tool with 11% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should carry purpose, parameter semantics and usage context. It delivers none of these, leaving the agent unable to invoke it correctly beyond guessing from the title.

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 only 11% (effectively just the 'country' enum note), and 5 of 9 parameters are required. The description adds zero parameter meaning — nothing about domain format, date format/ranges, granularity semantics, or the meaning of main_domain_only.

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 contains no statement of purpose at all — it is entirely pricing boilerplate wrapped in HTML comments. Only the tool name fragment and the title 'Conversion Rates Aggregated' hint at what it does (a SimilarWeb conversion-rate report), and neither is part of the description text.

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 alternatives among the many get_similarweb_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent has no basis for choosing this over get_similarweb_website_traffic_trend or the neighbouring website-analysis tools.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered structurally. The description adds cost/rate context (usage-based billing, per-credit unit rate, estimate not fixed), which is genuinely useful behavioral information not in the annotations, but it is heavily hedged and says nothing about the operation, data semantics, limits, or side effects.

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 text is short, but it is entirely off-topic boilerplate wrapped in HTML comment markers, front-loading billing rather than purpose. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 9-parameter, 5-required analytics endpoint with no output schema and heavy sibling competition, the description is wholly inadequate — it leaves purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and return semantics entirely undocumented.

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 11% (only 'country' is documented), leaving 8 of 9 parameters — including required domain, start_date, end_date, granularity, and limit — unexplained in both schema and description. The description provides zero parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 never states what the tool does. Its entire body is a pricing banner (per-credit rate and default request estimate), which conveys nothing about the verb, resource, or scope of a conversion-rate time-series query. Only the separate title/name hint at the actual function, and the description itself is effectively missing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling SimilarWeb endpoints (traffic_trend, audience_overlap, etc.). The only 'guidance' is cost-related, which does not help an agent decide whether this analysis is the right one for a given question.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-annotated fact — usage-based billing at ~$0.45/request and $0.075 per credit — but says nothing about data semantics, aggregation, freshness, latency, or the age-bucket segmentation the title advertises.

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 text is short but not concise in a useful sense: two HTML-comment delimited lines of billing metadata with no front-loaded purpose statement. The pricing note earns its place, but the structure serves a pricing pipeline rather than an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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 10 parameters, 6 required, 30% schema coverage, no output schema and no purpose statement, the definition is far from complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Nothing disambiguates it from the many sibling demographics/website-analysis tools.

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 only 30% across 10 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate — and it provides zero parameter information. Nothing explains metrics syntax, date-range conventions, main_domain_only, or the required single age_bucket beyond what the schema already states.

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 never states what the tool does; its entire body is pricing boilerplate inside HTML comments. The only hint of purpose comes from the tool name and title ('Demographics - Specific Groups'), which the description does not restate, expand, or clarify. An agent reading only the description cannot tell this returns age-bucket demographic data for a domain.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the many similar siblings (e.g. get_similarweb_demographics, get_similarweb_audience_interest, the other website-analysis variants). The absence is especially costly here because the sibling list contains several near-identical demographics/audience tools.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added context is the billing rate ($0.075/credit, ~$0.375 per request), which is genuinely useful behavioral information about cost that annotations do not carry, but it says nothing about latency, auth, rate limits, or what data is returned.

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?

It is short and front-loads a clear cost figure, but every sentence is billing boilerplate that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Brevity without substance is under-specification, not conciseness.

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 10-parameter, 4-required tool with a sibling-dense namespace, the description is completely inadequate: no purpose, no parameter guidance, no usage context. The presence of an output schema excuses return-value explanation but nothing else.

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 10% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining domain, start_date/end_date, limit, offset, web_source, traffic_source, main_domain_only, and granularity — and it explains none of them. Only the 'country' enum is documented in the schema itself.

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 never states what the tool does. It is entirely a pricing/billing notice ('Usage-based billing; Default request estimate: $0.375 USD'), so an agent cannot tell that this tool returns SimilarWeb audience-interest data, nor how it differs from siblings like get_similarweb_demographics or get_similarweb_audience_overlap.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling it should be preferred over among the ~30 SimilarWeb tools. The only content is cost metadata, which does not route tool selection.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The pricing block legitimately adds cost context (~$0.75 per default request, $0.075/credit), which is useful, but it discloses nothing about the operation itself or its output.

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 text is short but consists of HTML-comment boilerplate that is irrelevant to tool selection. It is not front-loaded with a purpose statement, so its brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 five-parameter data-retrieval tool with 3 required inputs and only 20% schema coverage, the description omits everything an agent needs to call it correctly. The existence of an output schema excuses return-value documentation but does not excuse the complete absence of functional context.

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 only 20%, so the description is obligated to compensate for undocumented parameters, yet it says nothing about domains (2-5, comma-delimited), date ranges, country, or granularity. The single documented parameter (country) is covered by the schema, not the description.

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 contains only a pricing disclaimer block and never states what the tool does. Nothing distinguishes audience overlap from siblings such as get_similarweb_deduplicated_audience or get_similarweb_audience_interest.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer the tool's purpose entirely from the 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is cost: usage-based billing at ~$0.075 per similarweb_credit with a ~$0.525 default request estimate, which is genuinely useful non-schema context. However, nothing is said about the data semantics of 'deduplicated' audience, date-range constraints, or latency, so it falls short of a 3.

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 text is short, but it is not concise in the useful sense: 100% of the content is billing boilerplate wrapped in HTML comment markers, and none of it is front-loaded functional information. It earns no place toward tool selection.

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 values need not be described, but for a 7-parameter, 3-required analytics tool the description supplies no purpose, no usage context, and no parameter semantics. The definition is effectively incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only 14%, and the description adds zero parameter meaning. Three required parameters (domain, start_date, end_date) and four optional ones (web_source, main_domain_only, granularity, country) are left entirely unexplained in prose, so an agent must guess at date formats and what 'deduplicated' implies for the domain 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 never states what the tool does. It contains only a pricing/billing block ('Usage-based billing; Default request estimate: $0.525 USD...'), which gives an agent no way to know this returns a deduplicated audience metric for a domain, let alone how it differs from siblings like get_similarweb_audience_overlap or get_similarweb_demographics.

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 exclusions, and no reference to any alternative tool. With ~35 similarweb siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a severe gap.

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, openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description's only added behavioral content is cost transparency (estimated $0.6/request, $0.075 per credit, account-specific settlement), which is genuinely useful for an agent weighing calls. However, it discloses nothing about data scope, auth requirements, rate limits, or result characteristics of a demographics read.

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 text is short, but it is short because it contains no functional content at all — a pricing marker block rather than a front-loaded purpose statement. Conciseness here reflects under-specification, not efficiency; the pricing note should follow, not replace, a statement of what the tool does.

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 8-parameter, 4-required data-retrieval tool with an output schema and a large sibling family needs at minimum a purpose statement and usage routing. The description supplies neither, leaving the agent unable to distinguish this from any other SimilarWeb endpoint. The only mitigating factor is that an output schema exists, so return shape need not be 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 description coverage is only 13% across 8 parameters, with four required (domain, start_date, end_date, granularity) carrying no documented meaning in either schema or description. The description contributes zero parameter semantics — no date format, no granularity semantics, no explanation of main_domain_only or web_source — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 contains no statement of what the tool does — it is entirely a pricing/billing boilerplate block. Nothing indicates that it returns SimilarWeb demographic data for a domain, and the title 'Demographics' is left to carry the whole purpose. An agent cannot determine the tool's function from the description text.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to any of the ~30 siblings such as get_similarweb_audience_interest or get_similarweb_website_top_geographies. No prerequisites, no alternative routing, no exclusions.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description's only added behavioral content is cost disclosure ($0.075 per similarweb_credit, estimate not fixed), which is genuinely useful but says nothing about what the operation returns or how it behaves.

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 text is short, but it is entirely boilerplate pricing wrapped in HTML comment markers rather than a front-loaded purpose statement. Being brief here reflects omission of the essential content, not disciplined conciseness.

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 10-parameter tool with 4 required params and 10% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. Although an output schema exists (relieving the need to explain return values), nothing else an agent needs to call this correctly is provided.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters, so the schema leaves most parameters (domain, start_date, end_date, limit, offset, web_source, granularity, traffic_source, main_domain_only) undocumented. The description compensates for none of this, adding zero parameter meaning.

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 never states what the tool does. It contains only a pricing boilerplate block ('Usage-based billing; Default request estimate: $0.075 USD...') with no verb, resource, or scope describing keyword competitor retrieval. An agent must rely entirely on the tool name to infer purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_similarweb_keywords or get_similarweb_similar_sites. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are offered anywhere in the text.

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 cover the operational profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description's only additive behavioral content is the billing model — usage-based, ~$0.075 per similarweb_credit — which is genuinely useful cost context. However, it discloses nothing about data freshness, result size, or what the returned keyword records contain.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: the entire body is boilerplate pricing with zero functional content. The one useful sentence (per-credit rate) is buried in a compliance block rather than front-loaded as tool guidance.

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 values need not be described, but for a 9-parameter, 5-required tool with 11% schema coverage and a crowded sibling namespace, the description supplies no purpose, no usage routing, and no parameter semantics — it is functionally empty.

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 11% (only 'country' is documented), and there are 9 parameters including five required ones (domain, start_date, end_date, granularity, limit). The description explains none of them — no date format, no domain input convention, no meaning for granularity or web_source — leaving the agent to guess.

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 contains no statement of what the tool does — it is entirely a pricing/billing notice. An agent must infer from the name and title alone that this retrieves SimilarWeb keyword data, and it cannot distinguish this from the many get_semrush_* and get_dataforseo_keywords_* siblings.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The pricing block states cost but not the conditions under which this tool should be chosen over the adjacent get_similarweb_landing_pages or the Semrush/DataForSEO keyword tools.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The only added behavioral information is the usage-based pricing estimate ($0.075 USD per similarweb_credit), which is genuinely useful context not present in annotations, but it says nothing about data scope, rate limits, or result semantics.

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 text is short, but every sentence is off-topic boilerplate about billing rather than the tool's function. It is structurally compact yet fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test because no sentence helps an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description omits the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter meaning for a 10-parameter tool with 4 required fields. For a complex, expensive, open-world query tool, this is completely inadequate.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. Parameters like domain, start_date/end_date formats, limit, offset, traffic_source, web_source, granularity and main_domain_only are left completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 contains only auto-generated pricing boilerplate and never states what the tool does. Nothing in it indicates that the tool retrieves SimilarWeb landing page data, what a 'landing page' record contains, or how it differs from siblings like get_similarweb_keywords. An agent reading only the description would have no idea what this tool returns.

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 usage guidance of any kind — no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to the many sibling tools (get_similarweb_keywords, get_semrush_url_organic_keywords, etc.). The description gives the agent no basis for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's only added behavior is billing context (usage-based, ~$0.525 per request), which is genuinely useful cost information but says nothing about auth, rate limits, data granularity, or what the 'legacy' designation implies.

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 text is short, but every sentence is pricing boilerplate that does not earn a place in a tool definition's description field. It is not padded, yet the space is spent on the wrong content entirely.

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 7 parameters, a low schema coverage of 14%, and no functional description, the definition is unusable for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema excuses omitting return-value details, but nothing else about this legacy marketing-channel tool is communicated.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, so the schema does not carry the burden — yet the description supplies zero parameter meaning. It never mentions domain, date range, web_source, granularity, or main_domain_only, leaving required and enum parameters effectively undocumented.

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 contains no statement of what the tool does; it is entirely a pricing/billing notice. An agent cannot tell from this text that the tool returns marketing channel source data, or how it differs from siblings like get_similarweb_referrals or get_similarweb_landing_pages.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. The only content is a cost estimate, which does not help the agent decide whether to call this tool versus any other SimilarWeb sibling.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavior is usage-based billing (~$0.225 estimate, $0.075/credit), which is genuine but tangential context; it says nothing about rate limits, result caps (limit max 20, offset max 100000) or data freshness.

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?

It is short, but every line is boilerplate pricing markup wrapped in HTML comments rather than front-loaded task information. The space is not earned by anything that helps invoke the tool.

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 10-parameter, 4-required tool with 10% schema coverage, the description supplies zero functional detail. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the complete absence of purpose, usage and parameter context leaves the definition inadequate.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — it mentions no parameter at all. Required fields (domain, start_date, end_date, limit), enums for web_source/granularity/country, and the traffic_source semantics are left entirely undocumented.

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 contains no statement of what the tool does. It is entirely a pricing/billing block, so an agent learns nothing about 'popular pages' beyond what the name and title already imply. This is a missing-purpose case rather than a clear one.

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 alternatives among the ~35 similarweb siblings, and no exclusions. The text addresses cost, not selection.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds billing context (usage-based, estimate, unit rate), but it omits functional behavior such as return content, auth needs, rate limits, and what the PPC spend data represents.

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 text is short, but it is entirely billing metadata and is not front-loaded with the tool's purpose or usage guidance. For a tool-selection description, the pricing block does not earn its place as the primary content.

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 7 parameters, low schema coverage, and many Similarweb siblings, the description is functionally empty. The output schema may cover return values, but the definition still lacks purpose, usage guidance, and parameter semantics needed for correct invocation.

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 only 14%, and the description provides no parameter meaning at all. With 7 parameters including required domain, start_date, end_date, web_source, granularity, and main_domain_only, the description does nothing to compensate for the sparse schema documentation.

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 does not state what the tool does at all; it only contains a pricing/billing block. The title 'PPC Spend' and tool name hint at paid-search spend, but the description itself provides no functional purpose.

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 guidance about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. An agent gets no routing information from the description.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in structured data: this call is billed (default estimate $0.15 USD, unit rate $0.075 per credit, account-specific pricing may differ). That cost disclosure is analogous to a rate-limit note and is worth credit, but nothing else about behavior is described.

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?

It is short, but the entire content is auto-generated billing boilerplate wrapped in HTML comment tags, which is off-topic for tool selection and invocation. Length is fine; the content does not earn its place.

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-parameter tool with three required inputs, 14% schema coverage and a large sibling set, this description is functionally empty. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the agent has no basis for choosing or parameterising the call.

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 only 14% — just the 'country' parameter — while there are 7 parameters including required domain, start_date and end_date. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so the many undocumented fields (data format for dates, web_source, granularity, main_domain_only) get no compensation.

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 never states what the tool does. It contains only a usage-based pricing block (default estimate $0.15, $0.075 per similarweb_credit) with HTML comment markers. Nothing tells the agent that this returns website ranking data, for which domain, or over what period, so it cannot be distinguished from siblings like get_similarweb_top_sites_ranking.

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 zero guidance on when to call this versus the 30+ sibling tools (e.g. get_similarweb_top_sites_ranking, get_similarweb_website_traffic_trend, the website_analysis variants). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The pricing block is a genuine behavioral addition (usage-based billing, ~$0.3 estimate, $0.075/credit), which is useful for cost-aware invocation, but it discloses nothing about the operation itself or its result.

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?

It is short, but every sentence is billing boilerplate rather than tool-relevant content. Conciseness is not achieved by omitting the function; the space is spent on procedural pricing rather than on what the agent needs to select and call the tool.

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 10-parameter tool with 10% schema coverage, the description is wholly inadequate. Although an output schema and annotations exist (reducing the need to describe returns and safety), there is no functional description, no scoping, and no parameter guidance — an agent cannot reliably infer what this endpoint returns or how to parameterize it.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it provides zero parameter information. Required inputs (domain, start_date, end_date, limit) and the meaning of traffic_source, web_source, main_domain_only, and granularity are left entirely undocumented.

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 contains no statement of purpose at all — it is entirely a pricing/billing banner. Nothing tells the agent that this tool retrieves referral traffic data for a domain, so the only signal is the name and title, which the description merely echoes indirectly. It fails to distinguish itself from the ~30 sibling get_similarweb_* 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_similarweb_landing_pages, get_similarweb_similar_sites, or get_similarweb_marketing_channel_sources_legacy. No prerequisites, no date-range or domain constraints, no exclusions.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added content is a usage-based price estimate ($0.075), which is genuinely useful operational context but says nothing about aggregation behavior, supported keyword counts, or data scope. Slight credit above the minimum.

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 text is short, but every sentence is billing metadata unrelated to tool selection or invocation, wrapped in HTML comment tags that further bury it. There is no functional content to front-load — the space is misused rather than simply verbose.

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-parameter, 4-required analytics tool with 14% schema coverage, the description supplies none of the missing piece: what data is returned in aggregate form, what date range/keyword constraints mean, or how it relates to the timeseries sibling. An output schema exists so return format needn't be explained, but the input and purpose gaps leave the definition unusable on its own.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters (limit, offset, start_date, end_date, keywords, granularity, country), and the description provides no parameter semantics whatsoever — no date format, no keyword-delimiter behavior, no limit/offset meaning. The description fully fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 contains no statement of what the tool does — only billing boilerplate. The title 'SERP Players - Aggregated' is the sole hint at purpose (aggregated SERP competitor data), and that comes from the title field, not the description, so an agent gets no functional explanation of this 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no reference to any of the ~30 siblings such as get_similarweb_serp_players_timeseries, which is the obvious alternative this tool needs to be distinguished from. The agent must guess entirely.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added value is cost transparency (~$0.075 per credit), which is genuinely useful context but says nothing about behavior, constraints, or effects. No contradiction with 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 text is short, but every sentence is off-topic boilerplate rather than tool documentation, so brevity here reflects absence of content, not efficient structure. The pricing note is front-loaded and clearly delimited, which is the only structural merit.

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 7 parameters at 14% coverage, 4 required fields, no parameter documentation, and no purpose statement, the definition is unusable for correct invocation. The existence of an output schema excuses explaining return values but nothing else that is missing here.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden — and it communicates nothing about limit, offset, keywords, start_date, end_date, country, or granularity. Required date-range and keyword-delimited params are entirely unexplained.

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 never states what the tool does; it contains only aisa-pricing boilerplate about usage-based billing. An agent gets no verb, resource, or scope from the description body, and even the title's hint ('SERP Players - Clicks over time') is left unelaborated. This is effectively a missing description.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance of any kind. Nothing distinguishes this tool from sibling 'get_similarweb_serp_players_aggregated' or the many other get_similarweb_* tools, so the agent has no basis for selection.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The one piece of added context is billing information (mentioned pricing, per-credit rate, account-specific settlement), which is genuinely useful for a paid external API and is not in the annotations. However, it says nothing about rate limits, latency, data freshness, or failure modes.

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 text is short and formally well-delimited by HTML comment markers, so it is not bloated. But it is entirely boilerplate that does not serve the tool-selection task; 'conciseness' by omission of all substance is under-specification, not efficiency.

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 10 parameters, 4 of them required, near-zero schema coverage, and a crowded sibling namespace, the description is wholly inadequate. It offers no domain identification, no date-range semantics, no limit/offset behavior, and no indication of what the output contains — an agent cannot call this correctly on the basis of the description.

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 10% (only 'country' is documented, and that is inside the schema, not the description). With 10 parameters — including non-obvious ones like main_domain_only, traffic_source, web_source, and required date-range bounds — the description supplies zero additional meaning, format hints (e.g. date format for start_date/end_date), or defaults.

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 contains no statement of purpose at all — it consists entirely of a pricing block ('Usage-based billing; Default request estimate: $0.375 USD...'). Nothing tells the agent what the tool returns, only that it returns similar sites if you infer that from the tool name. For a 10-parameter analytical tool this is a complete failure to identify verb+resource.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (get_similarweb_ranking, get_similarweb_audience_overlap, get_similarweb_subdomains, etc.). The only 'condition' offered is cost per credit, which does not help the agent decide whether this is the right tool for a task.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is billing (per-credit pricing and an estimated request cost), which is genuinely useful but is the sole disclosure; nothing is said about rate limits, latency, or result 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 text is short, but brevity is not the issue: every sentence is billing boilerplate that does not help an agent decide or invoke correctly. There is no front-loaded purpose statement for the pricing block to follow.

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 10-parameter, 4-required analytics tool with only 10% schema coverage, the description is wholly inadequate — it omits purpose, usage, and every parameter's semantics. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but nothing else is covered.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters (limit, domain, offset, country, end_date, start_date, web_source, granularity, traffic_source, main_domain_only), so the description is required to compensate for date formats, enum meanings, and limit semantics. It provides zero parameter information, leaving the agent to guess at required date formats and the meaning of 'granularity' or 'main_domain_only'.

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 contains only an auto-injected pricing block ('Usage-based billing; Default request estimate: $0.15 USD...'). It never states what the tool does. The agent must infer purpose entirely from the tool name and title, and gets no differentiation from the ~30 sibling SimilarWeb 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_similarweb_website_traffic_snapshot, get_similarweb_similar_sites, or the many other SimilarWeb endpoints. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are given.

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