Domain success-rate stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the 7-day time window and wildcard behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., a JSON object with rate fields), error handling, or any rate limits. This is adequate for a simple read-only query but leaves some behaviors implicit.

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, with the core function in the first sentence and a helpful wildcard tip in the second. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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: one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the essential context: what the tool returns (success-rate stats), the time range (past 7 days), and domain syntax. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though it could be improved by noting the response structure.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, and the description essentially repeats the schema's example ('example.com or example.*') without adding new semantics or clarifying constraints. The baseline is 3 because the schema already documents the parameter; the description adds no further 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return Web Unlocker success-rate statistics (past 7 days) for a domain.' The specific verb 'Return' and the resource 'success-rate statistics' make it unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unlocker_scrape by focusing on stats rather than fetching 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving success-rate metadata, and it provides a concrete example of wildcard syntax ('example.*'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions (e.g., 'for actual scraping use unlocker_scrape'). The guidance is more about value format than tool selection.

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