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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior an agent could not infer: fields are omitted per-site (soft98 has no size; vgdl has neither size nor requirements), and download links, passwords and crack notes are deliberately never returned, with a directive to open the item page and check the licence instead.

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, zero filler. The returned-field list comes first, then the caveats, so the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return payload and its site-dependent omissions, which it does well. It stops short of covering failure modes (invalid/non-item url) or noting that the fetched page must be opened for links and licensing, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the url (source sites plus an example), so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by tying response shape to the url's domain (soft98, vgdl), which tells the agent that the same parameter yields different field sets depending on which site the url points to.

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 and resource ('Return the details of one download item') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, version, size, category, date, description, requirements). This is clearly distinguishable from the dl_search/dl_latest/dl_list_sources siblings, which are list-style rather than single-item detail fetches.

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 never explicitly says when to reach for this tool versus the siblings; the workflow hint ('url from dl_search or dl_latest') lives in the schema property, not the description. Usage is implied by the fact that a url is required and by how the url param is sourced, which is adequate but not stated as 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 cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: soft98 has no latest listing, results are merged and date-sorted, output is metadata plus item page urls only, and failed sources appear under `errors`. It stops short of describing ordering ties, deduplication, or rate-limit behavior.

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, zero filler, with the core behavior (newest uploads, merged, sorted) front-loaded and the caveats (soft98 exception, errors bucket) following compactly. 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return shape (metadata and item page urls only) and the error surface (`errors`). For a small bounded result set (1-5 per source) this is nearly complete, though pagination/limits and result ordering edge cases are unstated.

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 100% with defaults, ranges, and examples for all three params, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond referencing source ids and category slugs implicitly, matching the baseline 3 for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the newest uploads of the download sites ... merged and sorted by date'), which is clear and distinct from a search or item-detail tool. It notes the soft98 exception, but never names the sibling tools it differs from (dl_search, dl_item) to explicitly disambiguate.

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 the latest across sources) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to dl_search or dl_item. The 'Empty = all' semantics for sources and category are documented in the schema, not the description.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the server 'returns metadata and the item page url only, never file links', which sets an expectation the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the source ids, then the return limitation and next steps. No filler or restated metadata.

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 return burden and does say what comes back (metadata plus item page url, no file links). It does not sketch the structure of the returned listing/categories, which is a minor remaining gap for a discovery 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or misleads about input handling.

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 (List) and resource (download-site sources) plus the shape of what is returned (latest-listing categories). Enumerating the four source ids (soft98, p30download, downloadly, vgdl) makes it unmistakable against the dl_search/dl_latest/dl_item 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?

Explicitly says 'call this first for valid ids', giving a clear precondition, and names the follow-up tools ('Next: dl_search, dl_latest or dl_item'). Both when-to-use and the alternative path are stated rather than implied.

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 read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, but the description adds real behavioral context: results preserve each source's own relevance order and are grouped by source, no file links are ever returned, and failing sources appear under an `errors` field. That is meaningful disclosure beyond 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then ordering behavior, then the download-handoff caveat and error reporting. No sentence is wasted.

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 return-value burden and does so well: it names the metadata fields, ordering, grouping, and the errors field. Complete enough to call correctly, though it could note result-volume limits.

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 100%, so page, query, sources, and per_source are fully documented in the schema. The description adds negligible parameter detail beyond 'by name', 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search the download sites by name') and enumerates the returned metadata fields, so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like dl_latest or dl_item, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

It implies the follow-up path by stating 'Open the item page url yourself to download; this server never returns file links,' which effectively routes the agent to dl_item. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over dl_latest or dl_item, so usage is only implied.

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