Get developer tools from the Harpd Discovery Index

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: this is a coverage list rather than a ranking, order implies nothing about quality, and every record includes observed_at, discovery source, profile URL, and full provenance. This gives the agent useful expectations about data completeness and limitations without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the resource and scope, then adds the crucial non-ranking caveat, a concrete usage line, and provenance details. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 7 schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the missing return-value context: record contents, provenance, and the non-ranking nature of the data. Together with the schema and annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by mentioning matching against name, domain, or description and confirming the developer category, but it does not materially enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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: 'Return developer-tool products from the Harpd Developer Tools Index.' It further pins the exact slice ('Discovery Index slice where category = "developer"') and explicitly separates this from ranking tools by stating it is NOT a ranking. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rankings or get_ai_tools.

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 gives explicit use guidance: 'Use this to find developer tools, SDKs, infra and dev platforms by name, domain or description.' It also implicitly warns against using it for ranked comparisons by saying records 'carry no rank and no rankPoints.' It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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