epinu

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

Describes return format, internal wrapping, and error handling for unknown IDs. With no annotations, description carries full burden and does well.

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 concise sentences, each adding value, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.

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?

Completely covers input, output, auth, error behavior for a simple tool with output schema present.

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?

Adds critical meaning to the id parameter by specifying the format (project:<uuid> or listing:<uuid>), which the schema does not provide.

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 fetches the full document for one search result by its opaque id, distinguishing it from sibling search 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?

Mentions availability without a token and that it is public data only, giving clear context. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use.

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 explicitly states 'Static content — requires no scopes,' fully informing the agent about read-only nature and lack of authorization needs. Since no annotations are provided, this self-disclosure is excellent.

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 'Start here,' and every word adds value. No redundancy or 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?

For a tool with no parameters and an output schema (mentioned in context), the description covers all needed info: what it does, what it contains, and its static nature.

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, so schema coverage is irrelevant. The description compensates by detailing the content (overview, rules, flows) that the tool returns, which is more than 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as an onboarding resource: 'platform overview, the proposal/approval operating model, auth rules, common flows, and agent etiquette.' It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by being static, introductory content.

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 phrase 'Start here' implicitly tells agents to use this tool first. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the sibling tools (marketplace_listings_search, projects_search) are clearly for different purposes.

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 states that the tool 'Returns summaries only,' giving insight into its output scope. No annotations are provided, so the description fills some gap by implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details about the many input parameters (7) with no schema descriptions. For a search tool with multiple filters, the description should at least hint at key parameters. It is incomplete for such a complex 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It mentions 'equipment, services, and assets' but fails to explain how parameters like 'query', 'category', 'maxPrice', etc., affect the search. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Epinu marketplace for equipment, services, and assets.' It distinguishes from sibling tools such as 'projects_search' which targets a different resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 that the tool returns summaries only and directs users to 'marketplace_listing_get' for detailed packets, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative. However, it does not mention cases when not to use this tool or contrast with the sibling 'projects_search'.

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 discloses important behavioral traits: returns bounded summaries only, includes owner's own archived/draft/unpublished projects, never returns another owner's unpublished projects, and public-only access without token. This is good 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 consists of two sentences, is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no extraneous information. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains the scope of results and auth behavior. However, it does not mention pagination via cursor or limit, which are key parameters. This is a minor 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not describe individual parameters, but the parameter names (query, status, min_roi, etc.) are somewhat self-explanatory. The description adds context about what the tool does but not parameter usage specifics.

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 Epinu real-asset projects, using the verb 'Search' and resource 'projects'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the alternative 'projects_get_deep_dive' for detailed packets, providing specificity.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for bounded summaries) and mentions an alternative (get_deep_dive). It also notes availability without a token for public results, but does not explicitly state 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?

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It states the tool is read-only, works with public data, and returns { id, title, url } results. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a simple search tool, the provided details are mostly sufficient, earning 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 three sentences, front-loading the key information: purpose, return format, usage guidance, and relationship to siblings. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and explicit notes on auth and scope, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and links to sibling tools.

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 single 'query' parameter is described in schema as a string with length constraints, but no additional semantics are added in the description. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should add more context, but the parameter name is self-explanatory. Score 3 reflects minimal added value.

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 performs a unified read-only search across public Epinu projects and marketplace listings. It specifies the verb 'search' and the resources, and distinguishes from siblings by noting it is an additive alias over projects_search and marketplace_listings_search.

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 explicitly says the tool is available without a token (public data only), and provides guidance on how to use results: call fetch with the returned id for the full document. It also clarifies that this is a unified alternative to two sibling tools.

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