List online presence

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

Annotations already convey read-only behavior, and the description adds a behavioral limitation ('No webcam or live stream frames') plus the POST endpoint. It does not disclose response semantics or pagination, but with readOnlyHint/openWorldHint present this is acceptable context.

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 short sentences with no filler; the main purpose and the differentiating negative scope are front-loaded. The endpoint information is a useful addition rather than 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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema, six well-described parameters, and no required arguments, the definition covers the essentials. The remaining gap is that 'online presence' is not fully spelled out as a status list, but the negative framing and schema carry most of the context.

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 83%, so most parameters already carry meaning; the description adds no parameter detail of its own. The undocumented 'compact' parameter is not clarified, keeping this at the baseline.

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 names the resource ('online presence') and specifies a concrete endpoint, and the negative clause 'No webcam or live stream frames' helps separate it from stream-oriented siblings. It relies partly on the tool name/title for the verb, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 only usage hint is the exclusion 'No webcam or live stream frames,' which implies this tool is for presence data rather than media. No sibling alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, so guidance is largely implied.

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