get_hall_of_fame

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: no rank calculation, boolean membership result, stored score/timestamp, potential staleness, and no auth requirement. This complements the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover mode-specific behavior, usage guidance, and safety in an efficient, scannable format. Every sentence adds 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return shapes, staleness caveat, alternative tool, and auth/destructive-action safety. No important operational context is missing.

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 already documents both parameters well, and the description adds behavioral meaning: omitting domain lists entries with limit/default/max, while providing domain returns a boolean membership result. This goes beyond schema descriptions by explaining conditional behavior.

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?

Description clearly identifies a read-only fetch of the Hall of Fame and specifies both invocation modes (list vs. membership check). It distinguishes itself from scan_domain by noting the data may be older, which separates it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: showing examples of strong DNS/email posture or checking membership. It also names scan_domain as the alternative for current evidence, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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