Filter Solutions Ltd Public Technical Content

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds the 'published public' scoping constraint, which is useful context, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or what happens when no content matches. Therefore a 3 is appropriate.

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 states what the tool does and how, with no filler or repetition of the title. 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two mutually exclusive parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and content scope. It could be slightly richer by explicitly mentioning how this differs from search_content, but the sibling names and parameter semantics make the tool self-explanatory enough.

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 id and url have descriptions in the schema. The description essentially restates those identifiers ('canonical URL or WordPress post ID') without adding new meaning, so it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the exact resource ('one published public Filter Solutions post or page') along with the identifier modes (canonical URL or WordPress post ID). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like search_content (which searches) and site_info (which returns site information).

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 when to use the tool: when you already have a canonical URL or post ID for a specific piece of content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as search_content for query-based discovery, leaving some usage guidance 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 certify read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details by specifying the return value ('canonical URLs and concise excerpts') and the scope ('published public content'). However, it does not disclose other behaviors like result ordering, pagination, or no-result handling, which are relevant for a search 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?

The description is two short sentences, both informative and free of fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides the return format. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what is searched, the scope, and the return shape ('canonical URLs and concise excerpts'). It does not mention query syntax or pagination, but these are not essential for basic invocation. The presence of annotations further completes the safety 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 50%: only 'query' has a description, while 'limit' relies on its type, default, min, and max to convey meaning. The description does not add extra semantic detail about either parameter beyond restating the query purpose. This is adequate because the limit parameter is self-explanatory from its schema constraints, but the description does not compensate for the missing limit 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('published public Filter Solutions technical posts and website pages'). It effectively conveys the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_content or site_info. The purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for discovery tasks.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when searching published public Filter Solutions content. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternatives, but the context is concrete and the intended use is obvious from the resource description. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by labeling the data as 'public' and 'machine-readable', which informs the agent about accessibility and response style. It does not contradict the 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 description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It places the core purpose upfront and names both the identity and discovery aspects without 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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what to expect (site identity and machine-readable endpoints) and the annotations cover side-effect safety. Because there is no output schema, slightly more detail about the exact shape of the returned identity/discovery data could have elevated this further, but it is adequate for invocation decisions.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents the input contract and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies, and there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 ('Return') and resource ('public site identity and machine-readable discovery endpoints'), making it immediately clear what the tool provides. It also distinguishes itself from sibling content tools like get_content and search_content by focusing on site-level metadata rather than content retrieval.

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 usage for discovering site identity and endpoints, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. An agent can infer the right context from the noun phrases, but there is no direct routing guidance.

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