Wordy Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return behavior ('return a normalized slug suggestion'), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops at 4 because it doesn't say what an unavailable/invalid result looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the availability check comes before the secondary normalization behavior. Slightly dense with a parenthetical URL template, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, URL format, and the fact that a normalized suggestion is returned. The remaining gap is failure/taken-slug semantics, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 parameter's format (3-40 lowercase letters, numbers, or single hyphens) and the 'site name to normalize' input mode are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same idea rather than adding new semantics, so 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 ('check whether a Wordy Page web address slug ... is valid and available') with the URL pattern shown, plus a secondary behavior (returns a normalized slug suggestion). It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as create_or_update_page, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a pre-flight check before create_or_update_page, but the description never says when to use it, when not to, or that it is the alternative to a creation attempt. No explicit routing to siblings is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: page limits, formatting/escaping/linking rules, contact-form delivery, and the immediate-publish versus email-verification flow; it still does not clarify whether updating overwrites existing pages/content, which matters for a destructive mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and key constraints are front-loaded, but the body is a single dense paragraph with many parenthetical formatting rules. Much of that detail duplicates the rich schema, so trimming or splitting would improve scanability.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with rich schema and annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, limits, formatting, contact forms, authentication, and publish status well. It still lacks explicit return/error behavior and precise update-overwrite semantics.

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 schema already documents slug, theme, photo, sections, owner_email, session_token, and other fields. The description repeats several field constraints such as theme, photo, cf, and formatting, but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and omits explicit discussion of from_slug and login_token.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: creating a new single-page or multi-page website or updating an existing site. It also states the 10-page scope and clearly distinguishes this mutation tool from sibling read/search tools such as get_page, list_pages, check_slug, and search_photos.

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 clearly states the creation-versus-update use case and explains the authentication-dependent publish path. However, it does not direct the agent to check_slug first or explain when to use get_page, list_pages, or search_photos instead.

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 closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds that the payload is structured JSON with specific fields and that it targets only published sites, but says nothing about behavior when the slug is missing or invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource stated first. The parenthetical field list is dense but every item conveys real return-value information; only slight trimming would improve it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema plus annotations. Minor gaps remain: no error/not-found behavior and no note on whether unpublished or draft content is excluded.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description only restates that the slug identifies an existing published site, adding little beyond the schema; 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 (read) and resource (structured JSON metadata/content of a published site) and enumerates the concrete fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_pages or check_slug, so differentiation is only implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'existing published site' plus a required slug, which tells the agent this is a single-site fetch. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer it over list_pages, or whether to call check_slug first if the slug may not exist.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: the result set depends on whether a session token or Authorization header is supplied, yielding owned sites or public sample sites. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but given the annotation coverage this is useful disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the primary behavior and then states the conditional alternative. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 listing tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential auth-dependent scope. It is nearly complete, though it could mention pagination or whether all sites are returned in one 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that `st` and Authorization/X-PQ-Session can also carry the session, and by explaining the effect of providing a session: listing your own pages rather than public sample sites.

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 (list) and resource (sites/pages), and clearly splits the two result sets: owned sites versus official public sample sites. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_page or search_photos, but the listing purpose 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 explains the condition that selects the authenticated-owned mode versus the public showcase mode, which is useful. However, it does not state when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as get_page or check_slug, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the token presence.

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 declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, but they do not capture the non-obvious side effect: this tool registers a photo with Unsplash as part of the search. The description surfaces that registration and explains the resulting id is immediately usable, which is exactly the kind of context annotations can't convey. It stops short of explaining what registration entails or any rate/auth concerns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then qualifies the output usage; the parenthetical field references are dense but earned. Slightly overloaded sentence, but no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should characterize what comes back. It implies the top result gets registered and that ids feed `create_or_update_page`, but says nothing about whether the response is a list of photos, ids, URLs, or thumbnails, or how paging interacts with results. Adequate but leaves a real gap for a tool an agent must chain into page creation.

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`, `query`, and `pick_first` are already documented, and the description adds cross-tool meaning for the registered photo id. However, "optionally register a chosen photo ID" reads as an opt-in manual choice, while the schema says `pick_first` defaults to true and auto-registers the top hit — a discrepancy that could mislead an agent about default behavior.

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 ("Search Unsplash photos via Wordy Page") and ties the result to a concrete downstream use (`photo` / `sections[].photo` in `create_or_update_page`), which clearly separates it from the page-management siblings. The secondary clause about "optionally register a chosen photo ID" is slightly fuzzy about who chooses, but the core action is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for when to reach for this tool — sourcing a page header image — and names the consuming tool and the "one image per page" constraint. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool performs photo search, so the routing value is still strong.

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