owlvin_aeo_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it performs a scan across multiple sources (server-card.json, agents.json, etc.), returns a score with grade and recommendations, and specifies the output format. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects.

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, followed by details on what it checks and the return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and output at a high level but could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or performance considerations.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'url' parameter's purpose (the MCP server's base URL to scan) and providing an example. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the added context is sufficient for understanding.

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 with specific verbs ('scan', 'score') and resources ('MCP server', 'agent discoverability (AEO)'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on scanning/scoring rather than optimization, buying credits, or other services listed.

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 (e.g., when you need to assess an MCP server's discoverability) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'owlvin_aeo_optimize' for improvements or other siblings for unrelated tasks. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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