B4 Index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds behavioral context: the tool is available only in B4 Pro (a paywall), and it produces quadrant distribution, BEWARE spend, and priority actions. This goes beyond the annotations, meriting a 4.

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, front-loaded with the essential purpose in the first sentence and tier context in the second. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 one parameter fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output (per-tool scoring, portfolio summary with quadrant distribution, BEWARE spend, priority actions) and the tier restriction. This covers all necessary context for an agent to decide and call the 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 description of the 'tools' parameter is detailed (list of names, max 100). The description only rephrases 'provide a list of tool/category names' without adding new semantics. 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 purpose: 'Analyze a software stack against the B4 Index.' It specifies inputs ('list of tool/category names') and outputs ('per-tool scoring plus a portfolio summary with quadrant distribution, BEWARE spend, and priority actions'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the free tier includes b4_browse and b4_score, implying audit is a Pro feature.

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 explicit usage guidance: use this tool for a full audit of a software stack, while the free tier tools (b4_browse and b4_score) are alternatives for simpler tasks. This tells the agent when to choose audit over its siblings.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds value by detailing the industry filter behavior (returning vertical + horizontal categories) and implying no side effects. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but the read-only annotation already assures safety.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: first states the core action and scope, second lists filter options, third details a critical behavior. No redundancy or fluff, and the most important information is 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 tool with no output schema, the description lacks details on return value structure (e.g., list of categories, pagination, sorting). However, it covers the essential usage and filter behaviors adequately. Given the tool's complexity and annotation richness, a score of 3 is fair.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, except for noting the industry filter's special behavior. This is a modest improvement over the baseline of 3.

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 searches and filters over 1,600 software categories with specific verbs (search, filter, browse). It distinguishes itself by listing up to four dimensions (keyword, domain, quadrant, industry) and highlighting the category count, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools that likely perform 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 description gives clear context on when to use the tool (browsing/filtering by various criteria) and includes an important behavior note about industry filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, leaving some usage guidance implicit.

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=true, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds no further behavioral traits such as auth requirements or rate limits, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences; the first conveys the purpose and the second details return contents and tier context. It is well-structured but the tier note could be integrated more naturally.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read-only, no output schema) and the richness of the schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and returns. It lacks full detail on output format but is adequate for its complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'category', which is well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics 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?

Description clearly states the tool compares 'build vs buy' for a software category, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like b4_browse and b4_score by focusing on comparison rather than browsing or scoring.

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 this is a Pro tier feature by noting free tier includes b4_browse and b4_score, providing some context on when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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=true. The description adds that the tool 'returns top matches with scores, quadrants, and actionable recommendations', providing some behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination limits, complexity, or request rate limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds modest value.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a bracketed note. It front-loads the core action ('Get B4 Index recommendations') and immediately specifies input and output. Every sentence adds unique value, with no fluff.

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 simplicity (1 param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: input, process, and output. It mentions the output includes 'scores, quadrants, and actionable recommendations'. However, without an output schema, there is a minor gap in specifying return structure details, but overall sufficient.

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%, with a single parameter 'description' well-described (maxLength, example). The tool description reinforces the input: 'from a natural language description'. The example in the schema ('We need to automate our expense reports and receipt scanning') adds concrete guidance, elevating the score above the baseline of 3.

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: 'Get B4 Index recommendations from a natural language description...'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('recommendations'), and input format (natural language description). Although it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the context (e.g., free tier mentions) and unique verb-resource pairing imply differentiation.

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 implied usage context (e.g., 'from a natural language description of a software need or business context') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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?

The description discloses that the tool returns quadrant placement, axes, urgency level, and a concise breakdown, and that includeEvidence adds the full research trail. This complements the readOnlyHint annotation (true) and openWorldHint (false) by detailing output structure and optional verbosity, with no contradictions.

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 with 3-4 sentences, no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then describes usage modes, output summary, and the optional evidence flag in a logical, efficient structure.

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 dual-mode complexity and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values (quadrant, axes, urgency, breakdown) and the includeEvidence behavior. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand inputs, outputs, and optional depth.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the mutually exclusive use of 'category' vs raw 'scores' and explaining the purpose of 'includeEvidence' to control detail level, thereby enriching the schema information.

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 scores a software category using the B4 Index, distinguishing between using a known category name for pre-computed scores or providing raw dimension scores for custom evaluation. This differentiates it from siblings like b4_audit, b4_browse, b4_compare, and b4_recommend.

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 explains two distinct usage modes with clear conditions: provide a known category or provide raw dimension scores. It also notes the lean default and the includeEvidence option for deeper results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.

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