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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining exactly what detail is returned and that include_preview returns the first screenshot inline, though it does not discuss pagination or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses compact parenthetical detail. It is slightly dense in one long sentence, but nearly every clause adds actionable return-value context.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so thoroughly by listing metadata and screenshot categories. It is nearly complete for a read-only detail endpoint, with only minor gaps around error behavior or missing-item handling.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains include_preview's effect clearly and clarifies that kind affects whether website or app screenshot sets are returned; slug semantics are left to the schema, but the key behavioral parameter meaning is present.

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 precise verb and resource: retrieve full details for one Godly item. It enumerates the returned content (description, live URL, metadata, screenshot URLs), which clearly distinguishes this detail-fetching tool from search/list siblings.

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 phrase 'for one Godly item' implies this is the detail lookup after finding an item, and the slug schema mentions search_inspiration. However, the description itself does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this versus search_inspiration or list_section_inspiration.

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 and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what comes back (names plus item counts) for a tool with no output schema, though it omits ordering, whether counts are all-time or scoped, and any result-size limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, payload shape, and downstream use with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and why an agent would call it. Nothing further is needed to invoke it 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline applies. The description usefully reframes the output as the input vocabulary for search_inspiration's `category` parameter, which is the only semantic connection worth making here.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List category names') with the added detail that item counts are included, and it explicitly ties the result to the `category` filter of the sibling search_inspiration. An agent can distinguish this from search_inspiration or get_inspiration without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'usable as the `category` filter in search_inspiration' clearly signals the intended workflow (fetch categories, then filter searches), naming the sibling that consumes the output. It stops short of an explicit 'call this before search_inspiration when you don't know valid category values' or stating when-not to use it, so it's clear context rather than full routing 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 establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful context about the returned `image` field being a direct crop suitable for view_image, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or other behavioral details. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is a modest but real addition.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and section options, followed by the key output detail. No wasted language.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the browse purpose and the central `image` return field. However, it omits `limit` semantics and does not describe the rest of the result shape, leaving gaps for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the section categories, but those duplicate the enum, and it says nothing about the `limit` parameter, its default, or its range. Half the parameters remain unclarified beyond their raw schema definitions.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Godly's curated section galleries'), and enumerates the section categories. It clearly distinguishes this browsing tool from get/search tools by emphasizing curated galleries, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_inspiration or get_inspiration.

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?

Usage is implied: browse section galleries and pass the returned image to view_image. However, the description does not state when to use this tool versus search_inspiration, get_inspiration, or list_categories. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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 read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is free; the description adds real context beyond that: AND-matching of all query words across title/description/categories/domain, newest-first ordering when query is omitted, and a slug-only return shape. It doesn't state pagination behavior or result-count semantics, but those are minor given the limit/offset schema bounds.

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?

Four dense sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the resource and matching semantics before the follow-up routing hints. Every sentence carries an actionable fact.

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 correctly carries the return-shape burden by stating it returns slugs and where to take them. Combined with ordering and matching rules, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 only 40% (kind, limit, offset undocumented in schema), so the description must compensate. It does for `query` (all words matched against title, description, categories, domain) and `category` (points to list_categories), and the enumerated content types implicitly map to the `kind` enum; limit/offset remain self-explanatory from bounds and defaults.

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 (search) plus the exact resource and its three content types (websites/landing pages, iOS apps, templates). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_inspiration as the detail follow-up and list_categories as the category resolver.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance and alternatives: omit `query` to browse newest first, pass a returned slug to get_inspiration for screenshots/details, and use list_categories for valid category names. An agent can route correctly without opening any other schema.

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 cover readOnly/openWorld, so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does: it discloses that tall full-page screenshots are split into vertical tiles, that the response reports `pages`, and how to fetch further tiles. That's meaningful behavioral detail about the response shape.

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 tight sentences, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the pagination caveat follows immediately with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description shoulders the burden of explaining returns, and it does explain the `pages` reporting and tile mechanic. Slightly incomplete on what the image itself represents, but for a view tool that's largely self-evident.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between the `pages` count in the response and the `page` parameter for requesting further tiles — semantics the schema alone doesn't convey.

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?

Specific verb and resource: fetch a cdn.godly.design screenshot and return it as a viewable image. It's clearly distinct from the inspiration/search siblings, though the distinction is implicit (the siblings deal with inspiration content, not image viewing) rather than stated.

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 useful guidance on paginating through tiles, but never says when to reach for this tool versus the sibling tools, nor that the url must come from another tool's output (that's only in the schema). Usage context is implied rather than articulated.

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