Website Technology Stack Detector: Tech Stack API, CMS & Leads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations lack: the pay-per-result cost model with specific prices (run start $0.003, per website $0.02, google search page $0.004). It doesn't cover return format or rate/pagination behavior, so 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, followed by the cost model. Every clause carries information. The pricing enumeration is slightly dense but relevant to an agent assessing execution.

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 detection tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and cost reasonably well. However, with no output schema present, it could describe what the detection returns (tech categories, identity fields, signals) and it omits usage routing, leaving the definition adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (websites, includeIdentity). The description adds no syntax or format detail 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+resource ('Detects the technologies of websites') and quantifies scope ('280+: CMS, e-commerce, analytics, consent tools'). It also mentions the company-identity/sales-signal enrichment, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_company_behind_website, whose scope overlaps via the legal-notice identity extraction.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what scenarios. With a sibling like get_company_behind_website and get_run_results, an agent gets no routing guidance. The only extra context is pricing, which is not usage guidance.

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