agentic

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: no money moves, no order creation, and returns payment requirements. This covers the key side effects, though it omits details on permissions, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 concise sentences: first states the action and required inputs, second clarifies the outcome and lack of side effects. No redundant information, 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 9 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain optional parameters, return value structure, error scenarios, or prerequisites beyond get_catalog, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions three required parameters (businessName, contactEmail, agentPurpose) but leaves six optional parameters (notes, greeting, etc.) entirely unexplained, providing insufficient guidance.

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 'Begin a purchase' and specifies the action: providing a setup spec to get payment requirements. It distinguishes from siblings (get_catalog, get_order_status, submit_payment) by noting that no order or money movement occurs at this step.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool ('Begin a purchase') and what to provide (setup spec), referencing get_catalog for the schema. It explains the outcome but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though siblings provide context.

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 carries the full burden. It describes the content but not behavioral traits like side effects (likely read-only), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description implies no mutability, but does not explicitly confirm it.

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-loading the purpose in the first sentence and providing essential details in the second. No extraneous content, earning 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?

Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description provides sufficient detail about the return content. However, it omits format details (e.g., response structure), but the simplicity of the tool (single retrieval) makes this acceptable.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds significant meaning by detailing what the catalog returns, which goes beyond the schema's scope. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 explicitly states 'Get the DeskCrew.ai agentic catalog' with a clear verb-resource pair. It lists exactly what the catalog contains (items, price, payment rails, spec schema, buyer rationale), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_purchase_challenge and submit_payment.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the tool's purpose is clear from the description, it does not discuss alternatives or context relative to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage without direct comparison.

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 full burden. It states it is a 'check' operation (non-destructive) and specifies the return values. Though it doesn't explicitly declare it's read-only, the verb and context make it clear.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with instructions and return values.

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 status-check tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite (submit_payment), required inputs, and possible statuses. It is sufficient and doesn't leave major gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by stating the parameters are from submit_payment, but does not provide any additional constraints or examples about their format or length.

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 ('Check') and resource ('an order you placed'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like submit_payment (which creates orders) and get_catalog (which lists products). It explicitly states what it 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?

It tells when to use this tool: after submit_payment, using the returned orderId and orderKey. It also lists the possible return statuses. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context is clear and appropriate for a simple status check.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that settlement happens on-ledger before order creation and returns specific fields. However, it omits details on failures, reversion, or authentication beyond the signature requirement.

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 purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates key actions and returns.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains the payment flow but does not cover all input fields or provide a complete picture of inputs and outputs.

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 only 10% (only paymentSignature described). The description fails to explain the 9 other parameters (e.g., notes, greeting, contactName) beyond referencing the 'same spec' from a previous step, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 explicitly states 'Complete a purchase', with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_purchase_challenge and get_catalog by indicating this is the final payment step.

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 sequential usage after create_purchase_challenge with 'Provide the same spec plus paymentSignature', but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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