Sleeper Hit Studio — Public Discovery

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 fully covered. The description adds only that the document is 'public' (implying no auth/permission scoping) and 'full' (implying a heavier payload than a summary); it says nothing about response size, rate limits, or what happens for a non-existent or private ID.

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 action and selector are front-loaded in the first sentence with no wasted words. The second sentence about ChatGPT deep research and company knowledge reads as promotional context that does not help an agent decide or invoke 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and 'full public discovery document' is vague about contents and size. It is adequate for a simple one-parameter read against rich annotations, but an agent gets no picture of the returned structure or error cases.

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 'id' parameter is already documented as the ID returned by the search tool. The description only echoes 'by ID' without adding format, provenance, or failure semantics, 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 (Fetch) and resource (the full public discovery document) with a clear selector (by ID from a search result). It is distinguishable from list_* and find_* siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_project_summary or search, which also return project-related content.

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

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

Usage is only implied: the schema note that the ID comes from the search tool suggests this is a follow-up to a search call, and 'full' implies a contrast with a summary tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and the 'Compatible with ChatGPT deep research and company knowledge' line is a client note rather than 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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that only public projects are returned and that results contain hub URLs and asset summaries, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or pagination.

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

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

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by return-content information. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description at least characterizes the return payload and the public-only constraint. It still omits pagination/limits, query matching behavior, and writerSlug sourcing, so an agent lacks some operational detail.

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 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema while the required 'writerSlug' has no schema description, and the description adds nothing about its format or where to obtain it. The description only loosely implies writerSlug via 'for a writer', leaving the most important parameter under-specified.

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 (list) and resource (public projects) scoped to a writer, which separates it from find_writers and get_writer_profile. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_project_summary or search, but the resource 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named (e.g., search for cross-writer lookup, get_project_summary for one project). The agent must infer the retrieval context from the purpose sentence 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context by specifying 'opt-in public' profiles, but does not describe return format, pagination, or rate limits.

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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool and every word 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?

Given the simple query nature, full schema coverage, and annotations that cover safety, the description is nearly complete. It states what is searched and the opt-in public scope, though it could briefly hint at return content or sibling differentiation.

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 five parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 (Search) and resource (writer profiles) with scope qualifiers (opt-in public, Sleeper Hit Studio). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_writer_profile or search, which could cause selection ambiguity.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this tool is for discovering writers rather than retrieving a specific profile via get_writer_profile.

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, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the access boundary between anonymous and authenticated capabilities and the fact that creation is handled by a different connector, which is exactly the kind of routing detail annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, no filler. The capability statement comes first and the actionable directive (call before refusing a request) is front-loaded in the second, which is the part an agent most needs to act on.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (permission tiers and signup URLs) and when to invoke it. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, intent-agnostic lookup by saying it returns the signup URL 'for each intent' rather than requiring an intent to be passed.

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: reading what Sleeper Hit Studio allows without an account, what requires one, and per-intent signup URLs. This is categorically different from the content-retrieval siblings (find_projects, get_writer_profile, search), so an agent can tell it apart 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?

It gives an explicit trigger — call this before telling a user you cannot create something — and names the alternative destination for creation (the separate authenticated connector). This is a concrete when-to-use plus when-not-to-use rule, not implied 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 meaningful scoping constraint that only public projects are returned, but says nothing about behavior for missing, private, or not-found projects, so it adds only modest 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?

A single short sentence with no filler; the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than deliberately tight.

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 and no parameter documentation, the description carries the full burden yet omits error behavior for private or nonexistent projects and gives no hint about the shape of the returned summary. An agent can form the call but cannot anticipate results.

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 0% for both required parameters, and the description does not explain what writerSlug or projectSlug are, their format, or how they are obtained. The phrase 'for a writer' only loosely hints that writerSlug is needed, leaving the paired-identifier lookup convention 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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (project summary) and narrows scope with 'one' and 'public'. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_writer_profile or find_projects, and the phrase 'for a writer' is slightly ambiguous about whether the summary describes the project or the writer.

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 named alternative. An agent must guess whether to call this, find_projects, or get_writer_profile to learn about a project.

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 the meaningful filter that results are limited to writer-approved, public assets, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or what happens for a writer with no public assets.

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 sentence with no filler, and the resource/filter information is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of omitting the disambiguation the sibling set demands.

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

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

For a simple read-only one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the annotations carry the safety story, so not much is strictly required. However, the description never defines 'public' or 'writer-approved' versus the sibling list_writer_assets, leaving a real gap for correct tool selection.

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 0% for the single required parameter. The phrase 'for a writer' signals that writerSlug identifies the target writer, but the description never clarifies slug format, case sensitivity, or whether a writer id would work – so it only marginally compensates for the 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 gives a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('writer-approved public pitch deck assets') scoped to a single writer, which distinguishes it reasonably from the broader list_writer_assets sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with that sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 the close alternatives (list_writer_assets, list_project_assets) that an agent must choose between. The reader is left to infer that 'public' and 'writer-approved' are the selecting 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and mutability profile. The description adds that the profile is public and that public projects and shared assets are included, which is useful content-scope context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for missing slugs, or result size/pagination.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, lookup key, and included data with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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 read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves gaps around usage relative to siblings, slug format expectations, and failure behavior, which an agent might need before invoking the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the semantic burden. 'By slug' tells the agent the parameter is a slug-based lookup key, but adds no format, case-sensitivity, or example detail beyond what the bare schema type 'string' already implies.

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 public writer profile by slug') plus the scope of included data ('public projects and shared assets'). This is clear enough to distinguish from find_writers and list_writer_assets, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with a 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?

The phrase 'by slug' implies the tool is for lookup when the slug is already known, which is useful implied usage. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no indication of when to prefer find_writers or search over this tool.

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, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail — that results are "writer-approved public share URLs" — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an empty result means.

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 scope qualifier arrives immediately. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves obvious questions unaddressed.

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?

There is no output schema, and the annotations carry only the safety profile. The description conveys the shape of the return data (share URLs) but leaves both required identifiers and any pagination or error semantics unexplained for a two-parameter listing 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions a "specific project" (mapping loosely to projectSlug) but never explains writerSlug or how the two identifiers relate, so it does not 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?

Specific verb ("List") plus a precise resource ("writer-approved public share URLs") scoped to a project. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_writer_assets or get_public_pitch_assets, which sound adjacent.

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 named alternative, and no condition distinguishing this from list_writer_assets (writer-scoped) or get_public_pitch_assets. The agent must infer the selection logic from the tool 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope context ('writer-approved public' implies filtering to approved, public-facing assets rather than all assets), but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering.

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. It is slightly redundant in phrasing ('writer-approved ... for a writer'), which keeps it just short of ideal.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate and even characterizes the return content as share URLs. It nonetheless omits pagination/size behavior, which an agent listing 'all' assets would want to know.

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 0% and there is one required parameter, writerSlug. The description implies the parameter identifies the writer whose assets are listed, which is a reasonable mapping, but it adds no format, slug-shape, or validation detail beyond the schema's type declaration.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('writer-approved public share URLs for a writer'), which is more informative than the title alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like get_writer_profile or list_project_assets, so an agent must infer the distinction from the names.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'for a writer' hints that writerSlug is the required selector but gives no indication of when this is preferable to get_writer_profile or list_project_assets.

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 adds genuinely new behavioral information: results are limited to opted-in and writer-approved public content, telling the agent it cannot surface private or unapproved material. It stops short of disclosing ranking, result caps, or 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope-defining statement. The second sentence about ChatGPT deep research and company knowledge is short but is more integration marketing than invocation guidance, slightly diluting the payload.

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 one fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the definition is callable as-is, but it omits any sense of return shape or result limits, and there is no output schema to substitute for that. Adding a sentence on what a result contains and how many come back would close the remaining gap.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single query parameter's description already enumerates what can be searched (shows, writers, projects, genres, formats, accolades, table reads, pitch assets, trailers). The description adds no query syntax, operators, or format guidance beyond the schema, 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 (Search) and enumerates the indexed resource types: opted-in public writer profiles, project summaries, and writer-approved public assets. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like find_writers or find_projects, leaving the general-vs-structured-search distinction 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 through the corpus description (public, opted-in discovery) and the note about ChatGPT deep research / company knowledge, which hints at the intended discovery context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling named as an alternative, so an agent must infer that this is the broad free-text search.

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