ARVX

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that by stating 'Costs nothing,' which addresses the cost concern an agent or user would have before invoking. It does not describe the shape of the returned content, but for a zero-parameter informational tool the added cost disclosure is meaningful.

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?

Information is front-loaded and every clause carries content: the resource, the return contents, the trigger conditions, and the cost. The opening sentence is a long enumerated list, which is slightly dense, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what will be returned (link, steps, price, key setup) and when to call it. No gaps remain that would cause a misinvocation.

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 takes no parameters and has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema baseline applies. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to add or omit.

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 spells out exactly what the tool returns: the signup link, the steps the person must take themselves, the price, and how to add the key to this connector. That specificity makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like arvx_record_summary and arvx_run_reading, which are data-retrieval 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?

It gives two explicit trigger conditions: 'Call this when there is no key, or when the person asks how to start.' No inference is required about when to invoke it, and the conditions are precise enough to act on directly.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it does not consume a Reading and is capped at 10 calls per month per account. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or what happens at the quota limit.

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 tight sentences: purpose, inputs, then cost/quota. The most decision-relevant information (what it does, what it needs) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 does say the return is 'every item... in plain words', which is adequate framing. But the unexplained required 'reason' enum and absent permission/auth context leave real gaps for a 4-required-param tool with nested objects.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains 'record' and 'both people's emails' (user, other), but the required 'reason' enum with values access_request/correction/deletion_check is never mentioned, leaving one of four required parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: returns every item in a saved record in plain words, framed by the user question it answers. It implicitly contrasts with a 'Reading' (the sibling arvx_run_reading) but never names the sibling outright, so differentiation is suggestive rather than explicit.

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 trigger condition is clear — 'when someone asks what is held about them' — which is a usable when-to-use statement. It hints at an alternative by noting it doesn't consume a Reading, but never states when to prefer arvx_run_reading or arvx_get_access instead.

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?

Adds real context beyond the annotations: each call consumes one Reading from a free-then-paid quota, and repeated readings on the same pair are stateful (the previous record must be replayed), which explains the non-idempotent, credit-consuming nature. It does not disclose what happens to the email bodies submitted — notable for an openWorldHint tool that analyzes private correspondence.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact — input composition, ordering, record replay, and cost. No filler, and the core action leads.

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 no output schema, the description should say more about what a Reading returns beyond implying it is a savable 'record'; the agent is told to save it but not what it contains or how long it takes. Otherwise, for a 4-parameter nested open-world tool, the operational guidance is nearly 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the 'at least 3 by each side, oldest first' constraint is stricter than the schema's minItems 1, and 'send the record exactly as it was returned' defines the required fidelity of the record value. It says nothing extra about the nested user/other profile objects or the scores-vs-emails fallback.

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 states a specific verb and resource with scope: run a Reading on two people from the emails between them. It is distinguishable in operation from arvx_record_summary and arvx_get_access by the email-driven input, though 'Reading' itself remains proprietary jargon that the description never defines.

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 concrete preconditions: at least 3 emails written by the user and 3 by the other person, ordered oldest first, and the rule that from the second Reading on the pair you must resend the prior record unchanged. It does not, however, route the agent to arvx_get_access for the 'first 3 are free' check or explain when reading is inappropriate.

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