List ready-made fixes

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

Goes well past the annotations by stating that nothing is recorded, the site is not fetched, and that it answers only for sites the account tracks — clarifying what would otherwise be ambiguous versus check_fix, which creates a request. It also discloses the subscription prerequisite and trial/payment terms that gate a successful call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and payload before the usage and prerequisite details, which is the right ordering. It loses a little to redundancy ('without recording a new request' restated as 'nothing is recorded') and to the dense pricing/trial parenthetical.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return shapes, yet it still flags the key fields an agent will act on (platform, platforms, newest request id). Prerequisites, read-only semantics, and the free alternative are all covered.

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?

Only one parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already defines it. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the domain must be a site the account tracks, which the schema does not say.

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 and resource ('List the ready-made fixes'), the scope ('for a tracked site'), the ordering ('top first'), and the per-item payload (needed/why, platform compatibility, newest request + status). It is clearly separable from siblings like get_fix, get_fix_facts, and check_fix.

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?

Names three concrete triggering questions ('which fixes their site needs, which to do first, or whether a fix they added has gone live') and an explicit fallback path when the user lacks a subscription: call get_sample_audit first. It also signals the handoff to check_fix via the returned request id.

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