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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return-value details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or error conditions. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and using an Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or verbose 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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, arguments, and return value. However, it lacks detail on the exact output format or any caveats, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'slugs' parameter, including min/max constraints and a description. The tool description repeats the 2-5 constraint and adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Compare') with a resource ('multiple agents') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on side-by-side comparison. The return details (pricing, capabilities, recommendations) add specificity and clarify the tool's unique value.

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 implies usage when comparing 2-5 agents side-by-side, but it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when to prefer this over yagoo_get_agent or yagoo_search. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so guidance is present but only implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return content: a complete agent profile including capabilities, limitations, pricing, and recommendations. This goes beyond the bare annotations, though it doesn't cover edge cases or failure modes.

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 concise, well-organized with Args and Returns sections, and contains no redundant or fluffy language. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's function and output.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the input, and the return value in sufficient detail. The annotations cover the safety and idempotency aspects, and the schema fully documents the parameter. No significant gaps remain.

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 fully describes the single 'slug' parameter with examples, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description repeats some of this information, adding 'agent identifier' as additional context but not significantly expanding on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get full details for a specific agent from the YAGOO directory.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, compare, and list operations. The verb 'Get' and specific resource type make the action unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving details for a specific agent identified by slug, which is clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but with sibling tools like yagoo_search and yagoo_compare, the intent is clear enough. Slight deduction for not explicitly discussing trade-offs.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the return value contains all 10 categories with per-category agent counts, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, followed by a concise return-value note. Every word earns its place; no filler or 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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers purpose and return format. No output schema is needed given the simplicity of the return value, and no additional context is required.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. With zero parameters, there is nothing to explain, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation.

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 states 'List all agent categories in the YAGOO directory with counts' — a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('agent categories'), and scope ('all', 'YAGOO directory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yagoo_search and yagoo_list_mcp by focusing on categories and counts.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a complete list of agent categories and their counts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's simple zero-parameter nature and the phrase 'List all' provide sufficient contextual guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is 'ready-to-use configuration', but it does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or pagination behavior. This provides some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 three short sentences with a clear 'Returns:' section. It front-loads the main action and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 parameterless listing tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the scope (all MCP-supported agents) and the nature of the return (ready-to-use configs), though it doesn't enumerate exact fields. Given the simplicity, this is sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered by default. The description adds meaning by explaining the output is 'ready-to-use configuration', which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all agents with MCP server support', then states it returns 'connection configs'. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like yagoo_get_agent (single agent) and yagoo_list_categories (categories).

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 implies usage when an agent needs a full inventory of MCP-enabled agents, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. No mention of yagoo_get_agent for single-agent queries or yagoo_search for filtering.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it indexes 56 agents across 10 categories, returns ranked results, and is a directory guide. This goes beyond annotations 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, bulleted use cases, and an Args/Returns section. It is appropriately concise—every sentence earns its place—and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return format: 'Ranked list of matching agents with relevance scores and recommendations.' It also provides context about the directory size and categories, making it complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, providing full parameter descriptions. The description adds value by giving natural language examples for query (e.g., 'scrape websites'), clarifying the pricing filter, and noting the default limit of 5. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 clearly states 'Search the YAGOO agent directory to find the right AI agent for a task,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like yagoo_get_agent and yagoo_compare by focusing on search and discovery.

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 lists when to use the tool: recommend an agent, find alternatives, and discover agents by category. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage contexts are clear enough to guide an agent.

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