lookup_tech_stack

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains the detection sources ('from HTML, headers, and meta tags') and the output categories, but it does not mention limitations such as potential fetch failures, rate limits, or how it behaves for unreachable or JavaScript-heavy sites.

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 core purpose comes first and the second sentence adds valuable detail about categories and detection sources without repetition or unnecessary words.

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 has only one parameter and a clear, well-scoped purpose, so the relative description is strong. A minor gap is that there is no output schema and no explanation of the return format, but for a simple detection tool this is unlikely to prevent 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 100% for the single required parameter, so the schema already documents that 'query' accepts a domain or URL. The tool description adds no semantic meaning beyond this, but none is really needed given the thorough schema coverage.

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 ('Detect') and a clear resource ('technologies used on a website'), then expands with the categories it can identify. It does not explicitly differentiate from the siblings, but the listed categories distinguish it from research_company and find_contacts without 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?

The intended use case is implied: the agent should call this tool when it needs to identify the technology stack of a website. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling like research_company would be a better fit.

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