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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates a read-only balance check, but it does not disclose any potential nuances such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. It is sufficient but lacks depth.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 minimal complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter-level information to add, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema coverage gaps.

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 function: 'Get current Rapid URL Indexer credit balance.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('credit balance'), and this is distinct from sibling tools like submit_urls or get_project_status, which handle different operations.

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 context is clear: this is the only tool for checking the credit balance, so its use case is implied. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying 'from local tracking' and describing the output components, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires prior tracking to have occurred, or if there are any limitations such as omitting submissions not yet local. The verb 'Get' implies safety but this is not fully expanded.

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 concise, using two sentences without redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable information about output format. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the tool's output and data source, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. However, it lacks any comparison with sibling tools or clarification of how 'local tracking' relates to other submission tools, and it does not mention parameter options (though schema covers these). Overall, it is fairly complete but with some gaps around usage context.

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 100% coverage for both parameters (days and app_name) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves submission history from local tracking, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'submission history'. It also enumerates what the output includes (summary stats, per-app breakdowns, recent submissions), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_stats or get_report.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any contrasting use cases for sibling tools such as get_stats or get_report, and the phrase 'local tracking' only weakly implies a specific context without stating exclusions or alternatives.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a read operation but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or what 'detailed status' concretely includes.

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?

One short, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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 or annotations, and the description only promises 'detailed status' without clarifying what data is returned. Given overlapping sibling tools like get_report and get_stats, more context is needed for an agent to use 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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter project_id, and the description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves status for a specific indexing project, which differentiates it from list_projects. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from get_report, get_stats, or get_history.

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 only usage context is 'for a specific indexing project,' which implies targeted retrieval, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools or any exclusions.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states the tool downloads a report and shows which URLs were indexed, which is a useful safety indicator (read-only). However, it doesn't disclose the report format, potential delays, or any side effects, leaving some opacity.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's function with no redundant information. It is concise and 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly names the resource and content. However, it doesn't specify the return format or any caveats about the download (e.g., file type, whether it's asynchronous), leaving a small gap.

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% with a clear description for 'project_id'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Download' and a clear resource 'indexing report for a project'. It further specifies the report content as 'which URLs were indexed', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_project_status' or 'get_stats'.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a report of indexed URLs for a project. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear from the phrasing.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses a specific behavioral detail (inclusion of projections toward 50k/year goal) and the verb 'Get' implies read-only. However, it does not mention data sources, authentication needs, or return format, which would be valuable for a full picture.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional sentence about projections earns its place by adding unique 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is adequate at a basic level. However, it does not specify what statistics are included, how the period affects results, or how it differs from overlapping siblings like get_report or get_project_status, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 fully documents the single 'period' parameter with enum values and a default. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'overall statistics and usage tracking,' which clearly states the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_report or get_history, but the broad scope is implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The mention of 'projections toward 50k/year goal' implies a use case for tracking progress, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list' with no mention of side effects, permissions, pagination, or response format, which is minimal even for a read operation.

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?

One sentence, directly stated, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately concise.

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?

The description is too terse given the absence of an output schema and annotations. It doesn't convey return structure, pagination behavior, or the meaning of an 'indexing project', leaving important gaps for the agent.

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 already describes all three parameters with coverage at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('indexing projects'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project_status or get_history by focusing on a list-all operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention key behaviors: automatic deduplication and regex filtering. However, it omits other important behavioral aspects such as the effect of limits, the skip_already_submitted flag, and what happens on submission (e.g., success/failure responses). It provides some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose, the second highlights key behavioral features. It is concise and well-structured.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and two key features, but it lacks contextual information about return values, error handling, or the role of parameters like app_name and apex_mode. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description does not fully round out the operational context, so a mid-range score is warranted.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds a high-level overview of deduplication and regex filtering, which aligns with skip_already_submitted and filter_pattern. However, it does not add significantly more meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Parse and submit URLs from a sitemap.xml file.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool submit_urls by specifying the sitemap input source. It uses a specific verb and resource, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_urls. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where the tool is appropriate. The only implicit hint is the sitemap reference, but it fails to clarify the decision boundary between this and the sibling URL submission tool.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: each URL costs credits, Apex Mode triples the cost for faster indexing, and duplicate submissions are tracked and prevented. This adds useful context beyond the schema, though it omits other potential behaviors like rate limits or authentication.

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 provide all essential information with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds cost and duplicate-prevention details, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the tool's primary side effects (cost, duplicate prevention) and works well with a fully self-explanatory schema. However, the absence of an output schema means the response format is unknown, leaving a small gap in completeness for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the real-world implications of the 'apex_mode' parameter (3 credits/URL for faster indexing) and the purpose of duplicate tracking connected to the 'urls' parameter. This enriches the schema without repeating it.

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 action ('Submit URLs') and the resource ('for Google indexing'), with a specific service ('Rapid URL Indexer'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'submit_sitemap' by focusing on individual URLs rather than a sitemap.

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 when you have individual URLs to index, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'submit_sitemap' or state when not to use it. The cost information provides some practical guidance, but no clear exclusions or alternative scenarios are given.

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