gate_spend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's behavior: it fetches the URL server-side or uses the provided HTML, then returns a verdict and related data. However, the phrase 'Block ad spend' might be interpreted as the tool actually executing a blocking action, while the output suggests it only returns analysis. This ambiguity reduces transparency, but the description does clarify the analytical nature by listing return fields.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering what the tool does, how to use it (inputs), and what it returns (outputs). No redundant information, and the key details are front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful value.

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 tool has 4 parameters (two undocumented), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should be more comprehensive. While it does list return fields, it lacks details on parameter constraints (e.g., URL format, HTML structure), dependencies, or error conditions. For a tool that potentially impacts ad spend, more behavioral and usage context would be beneficial.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description mentions 'url' and 'html' but does not explain 'platform' or 'platform_csv', leaving nearly half the parameters undocumented. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, making it harder for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 purpose: 'Block ad spend on leaky landing pages.' It specifies the action (block ad spend) and the resource (landing pages). The distinction from sibling tools like audit_mobile and audit_speed is evident because those are audit-focused, while this tool is about spend blocking. The description also lists key inputs (url or html) and outputs.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: 'Pass a live url (fetched server-side) OR a raw html string.' It also lists the return values, helping the agent understand what to expect. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings, though the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no further guidance is needed.

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