get_prompt_of_the_day

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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the prompt rotates daily across 9 canonical token metrics, and the response includes the current leader, metric formula, and a ranking link. This helps the agent understand that output is stable within a day but changes daily, which is non-obvious from annotations alone.

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 well-structured with the core action front-loaded, followed by useful compositional details and explicit usage triggers. It is slightly verbose with the 'Intent: PROMPT_OF_THE_DAY' tag and the parenthetical SEO/AEO/GEO elaboration, but every sentence contributes to agent understanding. It earns a 4, not a 5, due to minor redundancy.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the prompt is, what fields will be returned (leader, metric formula, link), the daily rotation behavior, and when to use it. No critical information is missing for 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description covers this fully (100% coverage). The description appropriately does not discuss parameters because none exist. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is warranted; there is no parameter information to add.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns today's featured prompt from the SigRank prompt registry.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on operators, comparisons, and efficiency. The additional detail about the prompt being an SEO/AEO/GEO query further clarifies the unique scope.

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 explicitly provides triggering conditions: 'Use this when users ask ...' followed by three concrete example queries. This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives. Since there are no obvious alternatives for this specific functionality, the lack of exclusions is acceptable.

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