agent-bev

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the call is a paid x402 call (HTTP 402), it settles and signs the order, and goods are paid separately on the offer's terms. This surfaces the auth/payment requirement well, though it omits error or retry semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds relevant information about the payment and settlement flow. It is slightly dense with domain jargon (x402) but still concise and 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?

For a three-param payment-bearing mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the payment step, and settlement behavior. It does not explain return values or failure handling, but with annotations covering safety hints and a full-coverage schema for parameters, the remaining gaps are minor.

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% description coverage, so the schema already documents all three required parameters (email, offer_id, intent_id) with hints about where each value comes from. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the 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?

States a specific verb (accept) and resource (offer) plus the follow-on effect of placing the order through the Bourse. The resource name makes it naturally distinct from unrelated siblings, but the description does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the relevant siblings (get_offers, create_order_intent), which keeps it from a 5.

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 by the action itself—accept an offer to place its order—and the payment context helps an agent understand the flow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g., use after get_offers), so the routing burden falls mostly on the agent.

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 establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds something the annotations do not: that each returned value is attributed to its source page, which tells the agent the output is citation-bearing provenance data.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with verb and scope and followed by the output shape. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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, read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract (field-by-field values with per-value source attribution). Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 minItems/maxItems already encode the 2-10 range, so the description's restatement of 'two to ten' adds nothing. The example ID format is already present in the schema description, making this baseline rather than additive.

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 (compare), resource (products/drinks), cardinality (two to ten), and result shape (field by field, with source page per value). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_record and search_drinks, which fetch rather than compare.

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 two-to-ten framing implies the intended comparison use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_record or search_drinks, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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 write/open-world/non-idempotent, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful post-conditions (routing to each maker, verified makers respond with offers, maker address returned) and an important privacy/auth guarantee for the email. It doesn't cover rejection paths or what the immediate response contains, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then consequences. Dense but each sentence carries information; only the parenthetical field list mildly duplicates the schema.

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?

A nested, open-world mutation with no output schema needs side-effect disclosure, and the description supplies routing behaviour plus the email-privacy invariant. Remaining gaps – what the immediate call returns and any limits on subsequent offer reads – are minor in this domain.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the nested buyer object. The description restates the fields and reinforces the email's role, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Place an order intent'), names the scope (one to ten records) and enumerates the inputs, and distinguishes it from sibling reads like get_offers/get_order_route by describing the routing that follows. An agent can tell this is the initiating write in the offer workflow.

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 situates the tool in a workflow – orders go to makers, verified makers answer with offers, and the email is the key to read offers and accept one – which implies when to call it and what to do next. It stops short of an explicit when-not or naming a specific alternative 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds real value by disclosing that the search spans 'every open node' and that names are returned 'as each source wrote it' (i.e., unnormalized variants). It stops short of describing pagination or result shape.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scoping qualifier trailing. No wasted words, though it is minimal.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: it identifies the resource returned ('its products') and the cross-node scope. Missing detail about return shape (list vs. single, multiplicity across sources) keeps it from a 4.

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%, so both parameters (node, producer) are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'across every open node' mildly clarifies the node parameter's default scope, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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 (find) and resource (maker and its products), which is distinct from the drink-oriented siblings like search_drinks and compare_drinks. However it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The agent is not told when to prefer this over search_drinks or get_record, nor whether 'node' should be supplied. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the response shifts from offers to the placed order — but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or result shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. Slightly awkward split of the 'by the buyer's email' clause into a second fragment, but nothing 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is fetched but leaves the return content and the offer/order duality under-explained. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 both parameters (email, intent_id) and their formats (oi-<16 hex>) are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the email provenance, adding no meaning beyond structured fields.

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 (read) and resource (makers' offers on an order intent / the placed order), which is enough to tell it apart from accept_offer and create_order_intent. The phrasing is slightly compressed ('the order once placed') but the core retrieval purpose is clear.

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 only implied: the mention that the email and intent id come 'from create_order_intent' hints this is called after creating an intent and before accepting an offer, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus accept_offer or get_record.

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 the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds that the value is 'as the record states it' (stored, not computed) and scoped to trade channels only — useful domain context beyond annotations, though no auth or rate-limit details.

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, front-loaded with the core action and ending with a crisp exclusion. No wasted words; structure matches 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the conceptual return value (trade channel as recorded) and scope exclusion, enough for correct invocation. No missing input or behavioral 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single record_id parameter is fully documented with its <node>:<6 digits> format. The description adds no parameter constraints or format guidance, so 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (maker's or distributor's trade channel to order a product) and explicitly excludes consumer channels, so an agent can distinguish this read from consumer-oriented tools.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not condition ('Never a consumer channel') and implies intended context (ordering a product), but does not name an alternative sibling tool for consumer routes or other record reads.

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, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the payload contents (provenance fields, CUVEE, claim status, and a signed JWS record), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and key filter first, followed by a dense but relevant enumeration of returned fields. No wasted framing, though the semicolon-separated field list is slightly heavy to parse.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, describing the return contents compensates well. It omits error behavior (invalid/unknown record_id) and auth expectations, which is the remaining gap for a lookup 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents record_id including its '<node>:<6 digits>' format. The description only restates 'by record_id', adding no new syntax, constraints, or failure semantics, 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 and resource ('Read one product in full by record_id') and immediately enumerates what 'in full' means (every field with source page, reader, state, CUVEE, claim status, JWS). This is clearly a single-record fetch, distinguishable from list/query siblings such as search_drinks and compare_drinks.

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 says when to reach for this tool versus search_drinks or any other sibling, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid record_id obtained elsewhere). Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'Read one product'.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, which covers the safety profile. The description adds almost nothing beyond that – it hints at an 'open node' distinction with counts but never explains what open/closed means or how it affects the output. No pagination, ordering, or scoping behavior disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence, so no bloat, but it is not front-loaded with a clear statement of what is listed – it opens with a confusing country/node framing that muddies rather than focuses the reader.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations covering return shape, the description must explain what is returned. Instead it gives a cryptic list of fields ('door', 'state', 'counts') without meaning, leaving the agent unsure what a 'node' or an 'open node' is.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter meaning and correctly says nothing about inputs.

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 says 'List the countries on the record' but then describes returning 'each node's door, languages, state and counts' – nodes and countries are conflated, and the phrasing ('door'?) is obscure. The verb+resource is muddled and an agent cannot tell what this returns versus get_record or get_offers.

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 when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any sibling despite eight siblings including get_record and get_offers which likely overlap. The description offers no routing guidance at all.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the search spans all open country nodes, and the return payload is record ids plus each record's CUVEE, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 tightly written sentences: the first front-loads what is searchable and its scope, the second states the return shape. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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 usefully discloses the return payload (record ids with CUVEE), and the fully covered input schema handles parameters. The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance against the many sibling lookup/search tools, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (query, node, limit, category) are already documented, including the category enum and limit bounds. The description restates the query facets and hints at category filtering but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 names a specific verb (Find) and a concrete resource (beers, wines, spirits, ciders, RTDs) and states the searchable facets and scope ('across every open country node'). An agent can tell this is a global drink search, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_record or compare_drinks.

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 by the search facets and the 'every open country node' scope, so an agent can infer this is the free-text discovery entry point. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like compare_drinks or get_record, and no exclusions.

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