strale_getting_started

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication context ('without an API key') and implies a read-only operation ('Returns'), but omits other behavioral traits like rate limiting, caching behavior, idempotency, or the specific data format/structure of the returned capabilities list.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the value proposition (free, no API key) and efficiently lists capabilities using a parenthetical format that packs maximum information into minimal space. 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?

Given this is a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent can expect to receive (a list of free capabilities and setup steps). While it does not specify the technical return structure (JSON schema), it conceptually completes the picture sufficiently for tool selection.

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 contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4 per the scoring rules. The description correctly provides no parameter details since none exist, and does not invent fictional parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Returns free capabilities you can use immediately without an API key' and lists five specific capabilities with parenthetical explanations of what each does (e.g., 'email-validate (verify email deliverability)'). It also clarifies it returns 'setup steps for full access to 250+ paid capabilities,' clearly distinguishing it from operational siblings like strale_execute or strale_transaction that likely require authentication.

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 context through phrases like 'without an API key' and 'getting started' (in the tool name), suggesting it serves as an entry point for exploration before full setup. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when *not* to use this versus siblings (e.g., 'use strale_execute instead for paid capabilities') or prerequisites beyond the API key distinction.

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