datasets_techstack_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the exact return structure, the non-obvious is_infrastructure flag distinguishing backend infrastructure from human-navigable sites, and the 404 response for absent domains. It omits secondary traits like rate limits, but for a simple read-only item fetch this is strong disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then progressively detailing return content, the is_infrastructure flag, and the 404 case. The 404 note and rollup enumeration each earn their place; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter item lookup with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: input semantics are in the schema, return contents are enumerated, the special is_infrastructure case is called out, and the not-found behavior is stated. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit field listing.

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% — the domain parameter already documents format and normalization ('a scheme and www. are stripped'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond echoing 'by its domain,' so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage correctly 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 opens with a specific verb+resource — 'Get a site from the website tech-stack dataset' — and clarifies it 'Returns one site by its domain,' making the item-lookup nature unambiguous. It enumerates the payload (detected technologies with name, categories, confidence, version, evidence; rollups; is_infrastructure), and its single-site-by-domain scope sharply distinguishes it from siblings like datasets_techstack_search and datasets_techstack_facets.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you have a specific domain and want its full tech-stack breakdown, versus searching or faceting the dataset. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use it — an agent must infer routing from the 'one site by its domain' phrasing rather than being told.

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